A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Is There a Force of Gravity?" (my deathblows; also anbringup of the black hole)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 2nd 06, 08:01 AM posted to sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Autymn D. C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:55 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.