curvature of space?

What exactly is meant by the curvature of space from the practical point of
view.

Is it impossible for anything to follow any other line of travel other than
that which fits on this curvature?

If so, what is compelling that traveler forcing him to take this curvature?

Does even light have to travel along this path dictated by this curvature
and if so why?

Researcher




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Researcher wrote:
What exactly is meant by the curvature of space from the practical point of
view.


Albert lamented that light leaving stars would go to waste and leave
the universe impoverished so he 'bent space' to save this terrible
event from happening.Personally I find the reasoning hilarious but for
some strange reason others do not .

"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

This stuff,and partiularly light leaving stars, is comically priceless
and a person has to be so mesmerised by the fables which created the
early 20th century mathematician's version of astronomy to take it
seriously.






Is it impossible for anything to follow any other line of travel other than
that which fits on this curvature?

If so, what is compelling that traveler forcing him to take this curvature?

Does even light have to travel along this path dictated by this curvature
and if so why?

Researcher




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth and if
possible within the 'accepted' theory proposed by him.

But that theory must explain to everyone their queries. Unfortunately Dr.
Einstein is no more and I don't certainly believe in 'Time travel' to go
back in time and meet him,therefore his billions of avid followers must
explain perhaps. Unless it is really true that not many who are in existence
really know everything of what he said [maybe Prof S. Hawking knows].

I am sure even Dr. Einstein was a great admirer of Newton but what he did to
his theories we know.

I admire them both equally [maybe Newton more] and would like to really
understand who's theory holds truer or should I discover my own?

Researcher

"oriel36" wrote in message
ps.com...

Researcher wrote:
What exactly is meant by the curvature of space from the practical point
of
view.


Albert lamented that light leaving stars would go to waste and leave
the universe impoverished so he 'bent space' to save this terrible
event from happening.Personally I find the reasoning hilarious but for
some strange reason others do not .

"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

This stuff,and partiularly light leaving stars, is comically priceless
and a person has to be so mesmerised by the fables which created the
early 20th century mathematician's version of astronomy to take it
seriously.






Is it impossible for anything to follow any other line of travel other
than
that which fits on this curvature?

If so, what is compelling that traveler forcing him to take this
curvature?

Does even light have to travel along this path dictated by this
curvature
and if so why?

Researcher




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The skull grinning it at this particular physicist's banquet is not
Newton's but that of John Flamsteed.He created the celestial sphere
geometry at the core of Newton's conceptions and even though it took a
few centuries for axial rotation to the celestial sphere based on the
return of astar to a meridian to morph into orbital motion to
aether/absolute space,the result is indeed space 'curvature',this one -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

I like relativity because it highlights the Newtonian maneuvering and
insofar as the early 20th century can be unintentionally hilarious,it
does serve a purpose in the scheme of things even if it lacks any
substance.

I am not really surprised that the dynamicists did not pick up on
another type of curvature,real curvature this time.The rotational
dynamics of the Earth's molten/flexible interior indicate that
differential rotation occurs in the viscuous material just below and in
contact with the crust,something that can be seen,at least as a rough
guide,on the plasma of the Sun -

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif

The Earth deviation from a perfect sphere or its curvature would be a
product of similar dynamics leaving the interesting question that it
must also be a continuing dynamic affecting features such as the
mid-Atlantic ridge and nmore importantly,the motion of the fractured
crust.

In other words,leaving the mathematical excesses of the 17th -20th
century of celestial sphere geometry and the 'curvature of space' for
21st century dynamics of 'planetary curvature' is appropriate and
people are genuinely waiting for these areas to be developed.

You question has been asked a thousand times and answered in a
thousand different ways however you can read the original texts and the
reasons given rather than the contemporary or later versions.













Researcher wrote:
I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth and if
possible within the 'accepted' theory proposed by him.

But that theory must explain to everyone their queries. Unfortunately Dr.
Einstein is no more and I don't certainly believe in 'Time travel' to go
back in time and meet him,therefore his billions of avid followers must
explain perhaps. Unless it is really true that not many who are in existence
really know everything of what he said [maybe Prof S. Hawking knows].

I am sure even Dr. Einstein was a great admirer of Newton but what he did to
his theories we know.

I admire them both equally [maybe Newton more] and would like to really
understand who's theory holds truer or should I discover my own?

Researcher

"oriel36" wrote in message
ps.com...

Researcher wrote:
What exactly is meant by the curvature of space from the practical point
of
view.


Albert lamented that light leaving stars would go to waste and leave
the universe impoverished so he 'bent space' to save this terrible
event from happening.Personally I find the reasoning hilarious but for
some strange reason others do not .

"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

This stuff,and partiularly light leaving stars, is comically priceless
and a person has to be so mesmerised by the fables which created the
early 20th century mathematician's version of astronomy to take it
seriously.






Is it impossible for anything to follow any other line of travel other
than
that which fits on this curvature?

If so, what is compelling that traveler forcing him to take this
curvature?

Does even light have to travel along this path dictated by this
curvature
and if so why?

Researcher




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:39:51 +0530, "Researcher"
wrote:

I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth

"real Truth!"

you are wrong here, this is a sci group.

All physics does, is building models, descriptive
conceptual models, and trying to be in accordance with empirism.

The "real Truth" is not within our agenda and capabilities.

w.

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:39:51 +0530, "Researcher"
wrote:

I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth

"real Truth!"

you are wrong here, this is a sci group.

All physics does, is building models, descriptive
conceptual models, and trying to be in accordance with empirism.

The "real Truth" is not within our agenda and capabilities.

We leave that to Lester.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:39:51 +0530, "Researcher"
wrote:

I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth

"real Truth!"

you are wrong here, this is a sci group.

All physics does, is building models, descriptive
conceptual models, and trying to be in accordance with empirism.

The "real Truth" is not within our agenda and capabilities.

w.

It is within the agenda and capabilities of general systems thinkers,
who are in the process of forming a yet higher order mind via the web.
Physics is like arithmetic compared to the capabilities of cybernetics.
But don't take my word for it. I can't prove it.

- Don

Researcher wrote:
I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth and if
possible within the 'accepted' theory proposed by him.

"Real Truth" lies in the province of philosophy or
religion, not science. Scientific theories provide
models that are validated by comparison to
observation, nothing more.

But that theory must explain to everyone their queries. Unfortunately Dr.
Einstein is no more and I don't certainly believe in 'Time travel' to go
back in time and meet him,therefore his billions of avid followers must
explain perhaps.

No, if you want to learn, it is for you to do the
studying. There is no obligation on anyone who
understands anyhting to provide free tuition to
those wishing to learn.

You could start by reading some textbooks. I
recommend Taylor & Wheeler to start with.

Unless it is really true that not many who are in existence
really know everything of what he said [maybe Prof S. Hawking knows].

I am sure even Dr. Einstein was a great admirer of Newton but what he did to
his theories we know.

Do you? How did Albert define the "stationary"
frame in SR?

I admire them both equally [maybe Newton more] and would like to really
understand who's theory holds truer or should I discover my own?

Answer the above question and then consider
to what degree you are making a choice ;-)

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ups.com...

Researcher wrote:
I must admit that I am an unabashed admirer of Dr. Albert Einstein and
everything I talk about is in order to understand the real Truth and if
possible within the 'accepted' theory proposed by him.

"Real Truth" lies in the province of philosophy or
religion, not science. Scientific theories provide
models that are validated by comparison to
observation, nothing more.

But that theory must explain to everyone their queries. Unfortunately
Dr.
Einstein is no more and I don't certainly believe in 'Time travel' to go
back in time and meet him,therefore his billions of avid followers must
explain perhaps.

No, if you want to learn, it is for you to do the
studying. There is no obligation on anyone who
understands anyhting to provide free tuition to
those wishing to learn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point here is not about reading text books or getting free tips.
From you is it?
You are as it is struggling to win the world for your 'luminous ether' which
no one want to believe.
So, which text book should I depend on.
What I need is beyond just textbook quotes.
If you can prove in an arguement [like in this forum] anything that is what
it counts.
Tell why you think in such and such way if you have strong faith in it.
If that cost something and not to be stated free of cost keep it to
yourself.
Have I not been airing my views for free and can't have a way of charging
for it?
First one should give a plausible explanation and then comes all the
equations to support. Not to cook up theory to satisfy the equations.
All that theory about uncertainity , this spin or that spin etc. will be
called by me as bunkum even if I read them. That is one of the reason not to
read such books.

Researcher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
You could start by reading some textbooks. I
recommend Taylor & Wheeler to start with.

Unless it is really true that not many who are in existence
really know everything of what he said [maybe Prof S. Hawking knows].

I am sure even Dr. Einstein was a great admirer of Newton but what he
did to
his theories we know.

Do you? How did Albert define the "stationary"
frame in SR?

I admire them both equally [maybe Newton more] and would like to really
understand who's theory holds truer or should I discover my own?

Answer the above question and then consider
to what degree you are making a choice ;-)

George




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Researcher wrote:
What exactly is meant by the curvature of space from the practical point of
view.

Is it impossible for anything to follow any other line of travel other than
that which fits on this curvature?

No. But you'd need to use your rocket motor. Yer geodesic is the line
of least resistance -- in fact zero resistance in empty space.

If so, what is compelling that traveler forcing him to take this curvature?

Laziness.

Does even light have to travel along this path dictated by this curvature
and if so why?

Light is *very* lazy and always travels along a null geodesic.

Researcher




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com