|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractiveforce between bodies
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME BEND Ninety years after he expounded his famous theory, a $700m NASA probe has proved that the universe behaves as he said. [read the entire article below] Actually, although what this experiment PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive force between bodies" [merely], the results are still misinterpreted here in the usual nonsensical gibberish of conventional "physics-talk" of the past century: In effect, these interpreters speak of "space-time" bending* because they are not yet aware of the true evolution of the universe: They have discovered that the universe behaves as I describe it does [and which you can read at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com ] but they interpret it in their antediluvian understanding (it's as if the scientists who once believed that the entire universe revolved around the planet earth were interpreting this discovery in terms of that once so universally-held ancient superstition). ONLY my description of a universe which has evolved across immense amounts of time from unimaginably vast volumes of space could have produced/accumulated the "energy" that today powers it. No other explanation accounts for the prodigious amounts of energy infused into every last/smallest bit of the universe's matter. And not even the pretty fable of a magic [Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole of "Creation" ... for no reason at all. But, of course, this remains for yet another more impressive understanding still. S D Rodrian http://sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://mp3.sdrodrian.com All religions are local. Only science is universal. .. * Space is strictly/only the absence of anything between instances of something. And Time is merely the human mind's attempt to synchronize one or more of the universe's unrelated motions with/to one of more of the universe's other unrelated motion(s). --SDR START QUOTE Now the race is on to show that the other half of relativity also works-- for decades physicists have been asking the question: did Albert Einstein get it wrong? After half a century, seven cancellations and $700m, a mission to test his theory about the universe has finally confirmed that the man was a mastermind -- or at least half proved it. The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of Nasa's most complicated satellites, confirmed yesterday 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' the assertion Einstein made 90 years ago -- that an object such as the Earth does indeed distort the fabric of space and time. But this -- what is referred to as the 'geodetic' effect -- is only half of the theory. The other, 'frame-dragging', stated that as the world spins it drags the fabric of the universe behind it. Francis Everitt, the Stanford University professor who has devoted his life to investigating Einstein's theory of relativity, told scientists at the American Physical Society it would be another eight months before he could measure the 'frame-dragging' effect precisely. 'Understanding the details is a bit like an archeological dig,' said William Bencze, programme manager for the mission. 'A scientist starts with a bulldozer, follows with a shovel, then finally uses dental picks and toothbrushes to clear the dust away. We're passing out the toothbrushes now.' The Gravity Probe B project was conceived in the late 1950s but suffered decades of delays while other scientists ran tests corroborating Einstein's theory. It was Everitt's determination that stopped it being cancelled. The joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University uses four of the most perfect spheres -- ultra precise gyroscopes -- to detect minute distortions in th e fabric of the universe. Everitt's aim was to prove to the highest precision yet if Einstein was correct in the way he described gravity. According to Einstein, in the same way that a large ball placed on a elasticated cloth stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time. A marble moving along the sagging cloth will be drawn towards the ball, as the Earth is to the Sun, but not fall into it as long as it keeps moving at speed. Gravity, argued Einstein, was not an attractive force between bodies as had been previously thought. Few scientists need the final results, which will be revealed in December, to convince them of Einstein's genius. 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, e=mc2, the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,' said Robert Massey, from the Royal Astronomical Society. He said the mission was 'legitimate science' to test a theory and confirm its brilliance, but others have criticised the costs and length of the study, claiming that what was announced had already been shown. Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said the announcement would 'fork no lightning'. The theory explained When Einstein wrote his general theory of relativity in 1915, he found a new way to describe gravity. It was not a force, as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed, but a consequence of the distortion of space and time, conceived together in his theory as 'space-time'. Any object distorts the fabric of space-time and the bigger it is, the greater the effect. Just as a bowling ball placed on a trampoline stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time -- a phenomenon known as the 'geodetic effect'. A marble moving along the trampoline will be drawn inexorably towards the ball. Thus the planets orbiting the Sun are not being pulled by the Sun; they are following the curved space-time deformation caused by the Sun. The reason the planets never fall into the Sun is because of the speed at which they are travelling. According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate. More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ation.universe |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT anattractive force between bodies
On Jun 15, 4:36*pm, Aardvark wrote:
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. * EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT * - SPACE AND TIME BEND Here is the actual prediction, where Rodrian said Eisntein was wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...d728a9d08e959c David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT anattractive force between bodies
On Jun 15, 7:36*pm, Aardvark wrote:
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. * EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT * - SPACE AND TIME BEND * Ninety years after he * expounded his famous theory, * a $700m NASA probe has * proved that the universe * behaves as he said. [read * the entire article below] Actually, although what this experiment PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive force between bodies" [merely], the results are still misinterpreted here in the usual nonsensical gibberish of conventional "physics-talk" of the past century: In effect, these interpreters speak of "space-time" bending* because they are not yet aware of the true evolution of the universe: They have discovered that the universe behaves as I describe it does [and which you can read at:http://physics.sdrodrian.com] but they interpret it in their antediluvian understanding (it's as if the scientists who once believed that the entire universe revolved around the planet earth were interpreting this discovery in terms of that once so universally-held ancient superstition). ONLY my description of a universe which has evolved across immense amounts of time from unimaginably vast volumes of space could have produced/accumulated the "energy" that today powers it. No other explanation accounts for the prodigious amounts of energy infused into every last/smallest bit of the universe's matter. And not even the pretty fable of a magic [Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole of "Creation" ... for no reason at all. But, of course, this remains for yet another more impressive understanding still. S D Rodrianhttp://sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3.sdrodrian.com All religions are local. Only science is universal. . * Space is strictly/only the absence of anything between instances of something. And Time is merely the human mind's attempt to synchronize one or more of the universe's unrelated motions with/to one of more of the universe's other unrelated motion(s). * * --SDR * START QUOTE *Now the race is on to show *that the other half of *relativity also works-- *for decades physicists have *been asking the question: *did Albert Einstein get it *wrong? After half a century, *seven cancellations and *$700m, a mission to test *his theory about the *universe has finally confirmed *that the man was a *mastermind -- or at *least half proved it. *The early results from Gravity *Probe B, one of Nasa's *most complicated satellites, *confirmed yesterday 'to *a precision of better than *1 per cent' the assertion *Einstein made 90 years ago *-- that an object such as *the Earth does indeed *distort the fabric of space and *time. *But this -- what is referred *to as the 'geodetic' *effect -- is only half of *the theory. The other, *'frame-dragging', stated *that as the world spins it *drags the fabric of the *universe behind it. *Francis Everitt, the Stanford *University professor *who has devoted his life to *investigating Einstein's *theory of relativity, told *scientists at the American *Physical Society it would *be another eight months *before he could measure *the 'frame-dragging' effect *precisely. *'Understanding the details *is a bit like an *archeological dig,' said *William Bencze, programme *manager for the mission. *'A scientist starts with a *bulldozer, follows with *a shovel, then finally uses *dental picks and toothbrushes *to clear the dust away. *We're passing out the *toothbrushes now.' *The Gravity Probe B *project was conceived in the *late 1950s but suffered *decades of delays while other *scientists ran tests *corroborating Einstein's theory. *It was Everitt's determination *that stopped it being *cancelled. The joint *mission between Nasa and *Stanford University uses *four of the most perfect *spheres -- ultra precise *gyroscopes -- to detect *minute distortions in th *e fabric of the universe. *Everitt's aim was to prove *to the highest precision *yet if Einstein was correct *in the way he described *gravity. *According to Einstein, in *the same way that a large *ball placed on a elasticated *cloth stretches the *fabric and causes it to *sag, so planets and stars *warp space-time. A marble *moving along the sagging *cloth will be drawn *towards the ball, as the Earth is *to the Sun, but not fall *into it as long as it keeps *moving at speed. Gravity, *argued Einstein, was not an *attractive force between *bodies as had been *previously thought. *Few scientists need the *final results, which will be *revealed in December, to *convince them of Einstein's *genius. 'From the most *esoteric aspects of time *dilation through to the *beautiful and simple *equation, e=mc2, the vast *bulk of Einstein's ideas *about the universe are *standing up to the test of *time,' said Robert Massey, *from the Royal *Astronomical Society. *He said the mission was *'legitimate science' to test *a theory and confirm its *brilliance, but others have *criticised the costs and *length of the study, *claiming that what was *announced had already been *shown. Sir Martin Rees, *the Astronomer Royal, said *the announcement would *'fork no lightning'. * * *The theory explained *When Einstein wrote his *general theory of relativity *in 1915, he found a new way to describe gravity. It *was not a force, as *Sir Isaac Newton had supposed, *but a consequence of the *distortion of space and *time, conceived together *in his theory as *'space-time'. Any object *distorts the fabric of *space-time and the bigger *it is, the greater the *effect. *Just as a bowling ball *placed on a trampoline *stretches the fabric and *causes it to sag, so planets *and stars warp space-time *-- a phenomenon known as *the 'geodetic effect'. A *marble moving along the *trampoline will be drawn *inexorably towards the ball. *Thus the planets orbiting *the Sun are not being *pulled by the Sun; they *are following the curved *space-time deformation *caused by the Sun. The reason *the planets never fall into *the Sun is because of the *speed at which they are travelling. *According to the theory, *matter and energy distort *space-time, curving it *around themselves. 'Frame *dragging' theoretically occurs *when the rotation of a *large body 'twists' nearby *space and time. It is this *second part of Einstein's *theory that the Nasa *mission has yet to corroborate. *More at: *http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ation.universe 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is maether. Maether has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT anattractive force between bodies
On Jun 16, 8:36*am, Aardvark wrote:
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. * EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT * - SPACE AND TIME BEND * Ninety years after he * expounded his famous theory, * a $700m NASA probe has * proved that the universe * behaves as he said. [read * the entire article below] Your text would be easier to parse if you upgraded your VIC20. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractiveforce between bodies
Aardvark wrote:
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. Convince the moon. EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME BEND [snip crap] 1928-1931 Einstein, Müntz, Weitzenböck, Grommer, Lanczos, Cartan, and Mayer formulated teleparallel gravitation, "Fernparallelismus," that collapsed to General Relativity for Equivalence Principle = true. It predicted EP violation coupled to angular momentum (physical spin, particle spin, particle orbit, relativistic spin-orbit coupling), arxiv:0812.0034 and such. Spacetime torsion not curvature. Spacetime torsion is trivially testible, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ertor1.jpg idiot Ninety years after he expounded his famous theory, a $700m NASA probe has proved that the universe behaves as he said. [read the entire article below] 1) Galactic rotation curves vs. radius. 2) The Bullet Nebula and gravitational lensing absent baryonic mass. 3) idiot ONLY my description of a universe which has evolved across immense amounts of time from unimaginably vast volumes of space could have produced/accumulated the "energy" that today powers it. [snip more crap] 1) Account for the universe's natural abundances of hydrogen, helium, lithium, and boron. 2) Account for current summed WMAP observations. 3) Account for large scale filamentous distribution of galaxies. 4) idiot * Space is strictly/only the absence of anything between instances of something. And Time is merely the human mind's attempt to synchronize one or more of the universe's unrelated motions with/to one of more of the universe's other unrelated motion(s). [snip rest of crap] 1) The momentum four-vector. 2) The metric. 3) The quantitiative empirical validation of all GR predictions. 4)idiot. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractiveforce between bodies
Aardvark wrote:
[snip crap] Why don't physicists and other mathematicians posit the existence of a two-dimension reality? 1) Volume. 2) idiot Because Homer Simpson lives there, [snip more crap] idiot Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! [snip more crap] Francis Everitt, the Stanford University professor who has devoted his life to investigating Einstein's theory of relativity, told scientists at the American Physical Society it would be another eight months before he could measure the 'frame-dragging' effect precisely. [snip rest of crap] Gravity Probe B was a disaster of patch potentials. William Fairbanks, also at Stanford, knew how to handle patch potentials. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractiveforce between bodies
mpc755 wrote:
[snip 250 lines of crap] The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is maether. Maether has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. idiot http://home.comcast.net/~steveham21/turbo.mpg idiot http://www.kidsreads.com/reviews/0385327501.asp http://corsairanovel.topsite.ma.cx/the-hidden-arrow-of-maether.html "The Hidden Arrow of Maether" HEY STOOOPID: ***OBSERVATION*** SAYS YOU ARE A PIECE OF **** TO 15 DECIMAL PLACES. Pull your thumb out of your ass and read what people have *done* in the past five years. Theory says everything. You are insurmountably stooopid. http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf No aether http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT anattractive force between bodies
Dear Aardvark:
On Jun 15, 9:25*pm, Aardvark wrote: On Jun 15, 8:10 wrote: On Jun 15, 4:36 pm, Aardvark wrote: Yet Another SDRodrianPrediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. * EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT * - SPACE AND TIME BEND Here is the actual prediction, where Rodrian said Eisntein was wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...d728a9d08e959c Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is robbing me of all I once was. So I went to that ancient post to see where I had said Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not find such a statement by me. I can't even find any discussion of this matter in that post at all. It would be as unexpected that I should say such a thing as that I should say that whales wear shoes! Well, since you cannot seem to wade through your own affected style either, let me supply an appropriate quote: QUOTE Too bad Einstein simply replaced one myth with another myth (namely, the delusion that Time AND space have pertinent/critical existence... while the truth is that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only the absence of anything existing there. END QUOTE So clearly you thought he was wrong about gravitation. If interested, I'm sure I can find other examples of you make "predictions"... The nice thing (for you) about your Alzheimer's, is that you can claim victory at every turn. Whether a new limit is found to relativity, or another experiment shows support, you can point to where you "predicted" this would happen. David A. Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT anattractive force between bodies
On Jun 16, 1:05 pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Aardvark: On Jun 15, 9:25 pm, Aardvark wrote: On Jun 15, 8:10 wrote: On Jun 15, 4:36 pm, Aardvark wrote: Yet Another SDRodrianPrediction True: Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT an attractive force between bodies. EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME BEND Here is the actual prediction, where Rodriansaid Eisntein was wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.m...d728a9d08e959c Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is robbing me of all I once was. So I went to that ancient post to see where I had said Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not find such a statement by me. I can't even find any discussion of this matter in that post at all. It would be as unexpected that I should say such a thing as that I should say that whales wear shoes! Well, since you cannot seem to wade through your own affected style either, let me supply an appropriate quote: QUOTE Too bad Einstein simply replaced one myth with another myth (namely, the delusion that Time AND space have pertinent/critical existence... while the truth is that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only the absence of anything existing there. END QUOTE So clearly you thought he was wrong about gravitation. If interested, I'm sure I can find other examples of you make "predictions"... The nice thing (for you) about your Alzheimer's, is that you can claim victory at every turn. Whether a new limit is found to relativity, or another experiment shows support, you can point to where you "predicted" this would happen. Hey, ya gotta get yer victories where ya can! SDR David A. Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Officer Warhol's Prediction Comes True | nightbat[_1_] | Misc | 22 | November 18th 07 12:25 AM |
Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Cosmological Constant (i.e.... | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 42 | January 27th 06 11:03 PM |
Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Cosmological Constant (i.e.... | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 22 | January 21st 06 09:59 PM |
Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Cosmological Constant (i.e.... | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 0 | January 14th 06 01:08 PM |
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction | Martyn Harrison | Astronomy Misc | 1 | July 16th 03 03:21 PM |