|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Is There a Force of Gravity?" (my deathblows; also anbringup of the black hole)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2db0b69e0dc4b2
Phenomena is plural! Henry Haapalainen wrote: To Toob You say that the force is real. Now you do not think. The size of our home galaxy is about 100.000 light years, and gravity must work between galaxies, too. What kind of interaction would be needed to explain that kind of a force? But you are right, that some new explanation is needed. http://www.kolumbus.fi/henry.haapalainen/gravity.htm Snip long posts, retarded Henry! Learn how to use a proper thousands còmma. Our galaxy is not 100 liht-years in size. You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result. The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If you doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 61 years old, I publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My reputation would not allow me to break my promise. When I was 12, I had the thoht that gravity arose as explodent matter, with the universe's expansion as previdence.. Now, can you invalidare that? What are your magazins and how are you well known? The great physicist Isaac Newton created a mathematical model of gravity, and it is still in use. The basic idea is that masses attract each other, and there must be a force between them. What kind of a mechanism is needed to make that possible? We need interaction between all the atoms in the universe, each atom being in connection with all the other atoms, all the time and immediately, at the speed of a thought. If we understand this we know that the model cannot have anything to do with reality. So, a better explanation was needed. The speed of a thoht is not even the speed of sound, and is hardly immediately. Curvature of space was a brilliant idea. Gravity is not an attraction between masses. Objects in space are in free-fall, and there is no force acting on them. Falling in gravity field is relative acceleration, not real. Objects are moving straight ahead with constant speeds. It is space, that is not "straight". But there are problems, too. When we drop a coin, is it falling because time passes differently on it's upper and bottom sides? We ought to believe this if we believe Einstein's explanation for curvature of space. And the biggest question is the reason for curvature. Einsteinian gravity needs an interaction mechanism between gravitational mass and space around it. We still need something that can have an influence at the speed of a thought. It's space-time, rather, that is not straiht. Space is still straiht with respect to itself, and to greater spaces, as is time and to its greater time. Speed is holden up to celerity as a limit, so it's speed/velocity/momentum/work/ènèrjy/temperature that is squished and stretched with respect to itself and its greater parameters. However, I may see a flaw with GR's rational, again: If gravital force is nouht as acceleration is nouht if gravital mass is inertial mass, then as no normal inertial mass is experienced by a body as it drifts by a worldline, then the equation collapses to no mass and thus there is no categoric proof that no acceleration nor force is involved in gravity: F = 0a and not 0 = m0. There is no rational to accept that hefts fall in the shortest path--this is even a tèknic booboo: Their path is neither shortest nor longest, but the middest, only, and onely path. From the mid-path one can then deduce a subspace and supspace. Objects in gravity field are not really falling, and there is no force acting on them. Only possible explanation is, that space itself is falling. It falls into a gravitational mass, more specific into a proton of an atom. Objects only seem to be falling, but their acceleration is relative, not real. The falling of space is the reason for the curving of space. Objects are moving straight ahead with constant speeds. This should be old stuff by now a'seeing as I wrote two or three submissions to these newsgroups that explains all fields and charges or whits and motes coidentical with the particul, which includs its space and time. Distance is the same as size, and no space or time may bode where a body is not. In short, anoth, I eliminatd action-at-a-distance and made your falling space obsolete. Since gravity and the atom are two sides of the same thing, and one cannot exist without another, this leads to following: Free protons or free electrons do not exist. An electric current has been explained as a movement of so-called free electrons. That explanation is impossible. What happens in a conductor in which there is a charge? How does it differ from a conductor in which there is no charge? Any theory is incorrect if it cannot answer this basic question. Motes are free if they bear greater cinetic than potential ènèrjy. They needn't be outside the field of that potential, as they already exhibit a hupèrvòla. Aether does not exist. As said before, aether means an absolutely still background, that you can compare the motions of celestial bodies to. This applies to rotation, too. In some galaxies, star revolution speeds have been observed that seem contrary to the laws of gravity. The outermost stars may remain stationary relative to the galactic centre, or revolve in the wrong direction. No rational explanation has been found, so people have started to look for dark matter in space. That would be matter invisible to measuring equipment. It does not mean black holes but a widely dispersed mass outside of galaxies. However, those controversial observations have a simple explanation, and dark matter is not needed. We must recall the MM experiment a century ago that proved the inexistence of aether. What could we compare the galaxy revolution speed to, if not the aether! If we set our equipment to rotate at a suitable speed, we can see that all the stars in the observed galaxy revolve in the same direction and at speeds conforming to the laws of gravity. No, æther is the background against motions of ènèrjy, not matter. Everyone assumd that æther is straiht as a ideal space so that one would use it as a ruler, but it's not--æther must be as complex as all the motions that all bodies in it happer. Thus, it describs the field and not the space. The field is the new word for the æther. QED I should offer a overdue addendum to my anminder that black holes do not hav superluminal escape velocities, in my list of physicists' mistakes he http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c8009ee5ab49ac0a/5c12752e1fc99ddc?#5c12752e1fc99ddc. I already had sticklers with black holes and the conservation of momentum inside and outside the event hòrizòn, as in why could matter not jump out like with every other body. Now with further thoht I'm leffed with this chilling problem: How can black holes form /at all/? (not "ever", "at all"). The BH is a body whose escape velocity at some finite radius, the Schwarzschild radius, is greater than celerity. This need not be gravital--any force will do--and elèctric BHs are also predicted for overheavy nuclei (Z137) that exert the strongest elèctric force to drive the inner elèctròns "greater" than celerity. However, even-heavier nuclei are predicted because the speed-span relation is naïvely classic! The radius inputs the initial rest mass and "predicts" where the other body gains the cinetics to drift at celerity, but classicly! It doesn't see that the body gains mass-ènèrjy to disqualify its speed from celerity and shrink the EH's radius; it can only reach celerity if it gains infinite ènèrjy, which must be supplied by the BH that it /hasn't/. In other words, black holes cannot support event hòrizòns because they hav finite ènèrjy. I cannot find corroborant mentions: http://google.com/search?q=%22Schwarzschild+radius+is+classical%22+O R+%22event+horizon+is+classical%22. Could there be a deeper loophole? Like, maybe the EH is a de Sitter hòrizòn that shows up when flyby speed is greater than celerity, but that would be temporary after the junk falls into the black hole and /hits/ in finite time! The frozeth near the rim is only for apparent time; Hawking, the dumbass, didn't clear up that the body falls in at normal speed. Still, takene all of the above, the body should still be abil to dive into the hole and back out again if it hasn't anything to radiat into; that is, it conservs momentum. -Aut |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
R. Kiehn's "physical vacuum" and my "emergent gravity." | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 24th 06 06:55 AM |
"Black Hole" on the SciFi Channel | Double-A | Misc | 89 | June 13th 06 06:11 PM |
Oil All Gone: The New Work Force "Kali" Apology VVFWS NOMINATION: Guilty: Anyone Who Is Deliberately Supporting George Bush George Bush: World's #1 Mass Murderer "Kali" and the Torture Camps: The Abu Gh | http://peaceinspace.com | Misc | 1 | March 28th 06 01:21 AM |
"Is There a Force of Gravity?" | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | October 24th 05 01:10 AM |
"Is There a Force of Gravity?" | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 05 01:10 AM |