Is spacetime disappearing at the center of a celestial body withmass?

If the matrix of spacetime is accelerating inwards from everywhere on
the circumference of a sphere with mass, shouldn't spacetime then
disappear at the center of the mass? If you have two individuals on
opposite sides of this planet, one on the north pole and another one
one the south pole. Both these individuals are accelerating towards
each other by 9.81 m/s2, but they don't get any closer to each other.
If spacetime didn't disappear at the center of the earth, wouldn't it
be impossible for these two individuals to accelerate towards each
other?

"Zanthius" wrote in message
...
If the matrix of spacetime is accelerating inwards

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha!
If the Easter Bunny lays it eggs in a black hole, are black holes
made of chocolate or do they hatch into bright green flying elephants?
Ranting idiot alert!

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.

Correction. Any acceleration is a divergence from the general flow of
spacetime. So if I am accelerating towards the center of the earth,
then the matrix of spacetime should be flowing outwards from the
center of the earth, not inwards. As I am stationary on the surface of
the earth, I am perceived as accelerating inwards, as the general flow
of spacetime goes outwards. Spacetime has to be continuously "created"
at the center of the earth. It shouldn't be disappearing there.


On Feb 1, 11:46*am, Zanthius wrote:
If the matrix of spacetime is accelerating inwards from everywhere on
the circumference of a sphere with mass, shouldn't spacetime then
disappear at the center of the mass? If you have two individuals on
opposite sides of this planet, one on the north pole and another one
one the south pole. Both these individuals are accelerating towards
each other by 9.81 m/s2, but they don't get any closer to each other.
If spacetime didn't disappear at the center of the earth, wouldn't it
be impossible for these two individuals to accelerate towards each
other?

Dear Zanthius:

On Feb 1, 3:46*am, Zanthius wrote:
If the matrix of spacetime is accelerating inwards
from everywhere on the circumference of a sphere
with mass, shouldn't spacetime then disappear at
the center of the mass?

Yes, the whole idea is bollixed up. Spacetime is a mathematical
abstraction, and does not disappear down Alice's rabbit hole. Neither
"falling space" or any of its variants make any sense whatsoever. If
you want to waste time on another fairy tale, try "LeSage
gravitation".

David A. Smith

On Feb 1, 3:54*pm, dlzc wrote:
Yes, the whole idea is bollixed up. *Spacetime is a mathematical
abstraction, and does not disappear down Alice's rabbit hole. *Neither
"falling space" or any of its variants make any sense whatsoever. *If
you want to waste time on another fairy tale, try "LeSage
gravitation".

David A. Smith

Well, if the earth was a spaceship and I am pulled towards the ground,
then the earth must be accelerating upwards for me to feel a a force
of 1G downwards.

Dear Zanthius:

On Feb 1, 8:14*am, Zanthius wrote:
On Feb 1, 3:54*pm, dlzc wrote:

Yes, the whole idea is bollixed up. *Spacetime
is a mathematical abstraction, and does not
disappear down Alice's rabbit hole. *Neither
"falling space" or any of its variants make any
sense whatsoever. *If you want to waste time
on another fairy tale, try "LeSage gravitation".

Well, if the earth was a spaceship and I am
pulled towards the ground, then the earth
must be accelerating upwards for me to feel a
a force of 1G downwards.

Yea, too bad that "acceleration by gravity" is fundamentally different
than acceleration by a force system.

If you fire thrusters to change your orbit, you feel a force upwards
by your seat (or other ways by straps). When you are on Earth,
Earth's surface applies a force to you to keep you from proceeding
along your force-free geodesic... an ellipse with its major axis
aligned to your current position. Still no need for "force actors" to
get gravitation.

David A. Smith

On Feb 1, 7:41*pm, dlzc wrote:
Yea, too bad that "acceleration by gravity" is fundamentally different
than acceleration by a force system.

Well, suppose that the earth is growing in size in such a way that the
surface of the planet is accelerated upwards in all directions at 9,81
m/s2. How would this be different from an object falling towards the
earth at 9.81 m/s2?

Zanthius wrote:
On Feb 1, 7:41 pm, dlzc wrote:
Yea, too bad that "acceleration by gravity" is fundamentally
different than acceleration by a force system.

Well, suppose that the earth is growing in size in such a way that the
surface of the planet is accelerated upwards in all directions at 9,81
m/s2. How would this be different from an object falling towards the
earth at 9.81 m/s2?

Well, for one thing, you couldn't see the "accelerating
force" until/unless you were in contact with the surface.

Bob M.

On Feb 1, 8:22*pm, "Bob Myers" wrote:
Well, for one thing, you couldn't see the "accelerating
force" until/unless you were in contact with the surface.

Well, if the sun's growth vector is equal to the earth's vector away
from the sun, won't the earth then stay in a stable orbit?

Dear Zanthius:

On Feb 1, 12:34*pm, Zanthius wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:22*pm, "Bob Myers" wrote:

Well, for one thing, you couldn't see the "accelerating
force" until/unless you were in contact with the surface.

Well, if the sun's growth vector is equal to the earth's
vector away from the sun, won't the earth then stay in
a stable orbit?

But none of the other planets can, and we can't stay in orbit around
the Milky Way, and so on. It is a house of cards that folds up with
but a few moments thought.

David A. Smith