 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2007Why can the gravity force not be incorporated into atomic world. Where's the problem?
Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. Where's the problem? > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? Because they're different things. There's room in the Universe (out to the causal horizon) for different things. Just like Einstein wandering the halls of Princeton trying to unify the first 4 integers 1, 2, 3 and 4 into the unified concept Firstfour. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are different things. Of course, if Nature applies a metasystem transition to them to unify them (as in the case of the Global Brain) then the different things become one and the forests will echo with laughter. "And the time will come when you see we're all One and Life flows on within you and without you." > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? It can. We just haven't figured out how nature does it yet. PD > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0606118.pdf F_g/F_e = Gm^2/e^2 = 2.4x10^(-43) Idiot. f.cking imbecile.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 [snip wet fart] 1) 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, who in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). 2) Fuckhead. > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? A mere factor of ~10^42 (ratio of electromagnetic forces to gravitational forces between atomic components). Tom Roberts > > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom Roberts you mean a factor of ~10^-42, otherwise you only get a positive integer, not a factor >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you mean a factor of ~10^-42, otherwise you > only get a positive integer, not a factor No, the electromagnetic force is the stronger of the two. SignatureThomas M. Sommers -- tms@nj.net -- AB2SB > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB yes, so gravity is (1/10^42) *EM-force, this makes it a factor > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > yes, so gravity is (1/10^42) *EM-force, this makes it a factor And the ratio of EM force to gravitational force is about 10^+42. EM force is stronger by about a factor of 10^42. No idea what you mean by "this makes it a factor". - Randy > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Randy i ment ratio, not factor, read what mister tom said, ration in order ta make it ration you need a ratio, therfore is ~10^-42 which is a ratio, not ~10^42 which is only an integer > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > not ~10^42 which is only an integer If I have 5 chickens and 20 eggs, what is the ratio of eggs to chickens? - Randy > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Randy if you ask about ratio than 1/.25 so you have 1 egg to 10^-0.60205991328 part chicken or 1 chicken to 10^-0.60205991328 part eggs look tha foken definition of ratio, you need a fraction in order to divide 1. (Math.) The relation which one quantity or magnitude has to another of the same kind. It is expressed by the quotient of the division of the first by the second; thus, the ratio of 3 to 6 is expressed by 3/6 or 1/2; of a to b by a/b; or (less commonly) the second term is made the dividend; as, a:b = b/a. > > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > 1 chicken to 10^-0.60205991328 part eggs actually 10^0.60205991328 here > look tha foken definition of ratio, you need > a fraction in order to divide [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by a/b; or (less commonly) the second term is made the > dividend; as, a:b = b/a. > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Randy and take this too Glossary of Epidemiology Terms Add Glossary RATIO. The value obtained by dividing one quantity by another. Dictionary of Automotive Terms Add Glossary Ratio A fixed relationship between things in number, quantity or degree. For example, if the fuel mixture contains one part of gas for fifteen parts of air, the ratio would be 15 to 1 > > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > RATIO. > The value obtained by dividing one quantity by another. I see. And is 20 a quantity? And is 5 a quantity? So does 20/5 qualify as "dividing one quantity by another"? > Dictionary of Automotive Terms Add Glossary > Ratio > A fixed relationship between things in number, quantity or degree. For > example, if the fuel mixture contains one part of gas for fifteen > parts of air, the ratio would be 15 to 1 Right. 15/1 is a perfectly good ratio. I'm not sure why you think these sources are arguing on your side, that 10^42 can't be a ratio. What is the value you get by dividing the quantity 10^42 by the quantity 1? - Randy > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > not ~10^42 which is only an integer You f.cking imbecile, if x/y is a ratio then y/x is also a ratio - with reversed sign logarithm. You wouldn't know an integer from an integral from an intercooler. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 : You f.cking imbecile, if x/y is a ratio then y/x is also a ratio - : with reversed sign logarithm. You wouldn't know an integer from an : integral from an intercooler. Pot. Kettle. Black. You f.cking imbecile. 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein, who in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Tom Roberts. [snip] Nothing. Androclitty in physics is a blind man trying to navigate with a sextant in a rainstorm. Hey Androclitty, who turned the ocean upside-down? SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 [snip] Hey scumbag! Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID Jew, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein, who in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Tom Roberts. GPS works. Ring laser gyros work. Idiot. > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 you looks like sombody farted in your coffe thats tha whole poing, you are right, a ratio needs ta be expressed by a fraction mister tom expressed it as an integer, which is wrong, that is what i said > > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > mister tom expressed it as an integer, which > is wrong, that is what i said It needs not. a:b, a|b are not a/b. One term may be implicit in the statement. In sci.physics.relativity, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:36:07 -0700 <46CF6B67.FC9A43D4@hate.spam.net>: >> > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. >> > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > with reversed sign logarithm. You wouldn't know an integer from an > integral from an intercooler. Don't forget the interociter, the intern, and the intel. :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------------------- yes it is mostely the problem of **magnitude iow garvity is *practically* (:-) negligable in the Atomic world !!and may be even- nonexistant !! (btw Randy did you noticed that 'practically' in your argument ? (:-)........ ie while it is in"" the range of your ego" (:-) you use the practical argument ...... and if not 'in the range of your ego defence ??' ?? ATB Y.Porat --------------------- > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > in the Atomic world !!and may be even- > nonexistant !! Gravity has been observed in the atomic world. Because it is so small, it takes an incredibly careful experiment to observe it. But that doesn't make it nonexistent. As a matter of fact, there is an experiment ongoing to see if gravity affects a few atoms of anti-hydrogen in the same way as it does hydrogen. This has important consequences for the standard model. > (btw Randy did you noticed that 'practically' in your > argument ? (:-)........ No, I didn't. > ie > while it is in"" the range of your ego" (:-) you use the practical > argument ...... > and if not 'in the range of your ego defence ??' ?? No idea what you're asking. No idea what "the range of my ego" might be. If I was discussing practical limits, I'd use the word practical. I don't think the subject came up in this discussion. Nor does it come up in the discussion of minimum possible photon energy. Photons don't rely on whether it is "practical" for us to measure them, in order to decide to exist. The existence or not has nothing to do with whether we have the equipment to capture them. - Randy > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------------- you cant claim any existance unless you prove or confirm it experiemntally or else i claim that there are witches on brooms inside the Atom and you cant disprove it THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST BASICS OF NEW SCIENCE IN GENERAL AND ESPECIALLY IN PHYSICS or else you get into endless disptutes . with ego trips in them 2 can you tellus about the suspected gravity influence in Atoms?? 3 can you tell us as above but inside the NUCLEUS ?? ie some experimental evidence ?? if still not is it sound physics ??or may be specualtions ?? and if speculations - it must be defined as such !! will you ever in principle agree with crackpot Y.Porat ?? (:-) lets start with the above questions and assertions ...... TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------. TIA Y.Porat --------------------- > you cant claim any existance unless > you prove or confirm it experiemntally Nor can you claim things ontrary to accepted theories without evidence to support your claim. For example, claiming that gravity doesn't exist inside atoms. > or else > i claim that there are witches on brooms > inside the Atom and you cant disprove it I wouldn't be surprised what nonsense you'd claim [snip rating] > 2 > can you tellus about the suspected gravity > influence in Atoms?? They are very small > 3 > can you tell us as above but inside the NUCLEUS ?? AFAIK We have reason to assume gravity is any different inside or outside the nucleus. > ie some experimental evidence ?? > if still not > is it sound physics ??or may be specualtions ?? You mean like your weird theoies about the structure of the nucleus that have neither theoretical nor experimental support? Or your claims about photons having (rest) mass. Or your claims that three is a minimum photon energy or frequency and all photons have a multiple of thise value (ie photon frequencies are not continous) > and if speculations - it must be defined as such !! > will you ever in principle agree with crackpot > Y.Porat ?? (:-) Only if you are correct. So far those cases are few and far between > lets start with the above questions and assertions ...... This should be entertaining. > > you cant claim any existance unless > > you prove or confirm it experiemntally [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > This should be entertaining. ---------------- psychopath ----------------------- > psychopath Typical Porat troll post .. not even an attempt at physics. > > psychopath > > Typical Porat troll post .. not even an attempt at physics. -------------- i realise long ago taht i cant discuss with an obvious personal enemy that admitted that he hates my guts (now it i sreciprocal as well..) so since we are personal enemies and it i sobvious that the moment you see myu name you authomatically and obsessively leech on my back as a parasite it is obvious that even you dont expect formme any real answer !! you are motiavted by crazy compulsion and every one can see that it is never me that starts a dialogue' with you it is always you jumping on me first so in short f.ck youself psychopath or find soembody else to paure his sickness on Y.P --------------------- >> > psychopath >> >> Typical Porat troll post .. not even an attempt at physics. > -------------- > i realise long ago > taht i cant discuss with an obvious personal enemy You make yourself everyone's enemy .. you have only yourself to blame. > that admitted that he hates my guts > (now it i sreciprocal as well..) As well .. you started your hateful posts .. you expect me to LIKE you after that. Get over yourself > so since we are personal enemies > and it i sobvious that the moment you see > myu name you authomatically and obsessively > leech on my back as a parasite Ha.. I post in some thread .. you have to post "psychopath" in response .. you're obsessed > it is obvious that even you > dont expect formme any real answer !! I never did .. you don't know enough physcis fora real answer > you are motiavted by crazy compulsion > and every one can see that it is never > me that starts a dialogue' with you > it is always you jumping on me first You really think anyone will believe that? > so > in short f.ck youself psychopath > or find soembody else to paure his sickness on You are a seriously disturbed old man. Get help > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > You are a seriously disturbed old man. Get help ------------------- not difficult to realize you are a psychopath fo ranyone who will follow how is the one who starts to post and the other one imediately is parasiting on hi sneck Josef Goebeless as well thought that **he can cheat every body forever** but not all here are fools and not of your gange and you are going to the same destination as him and the same use for mankind as him little Psychopath and a pain in the neck to this ng greating to your psychiatrist Y.P ----------------------------- > not difficult to realize you are a psychopath Get over it ..ratty. If you want to discuss physics, then do it. Stop your continual insults, they are boring and tedious [snip more obsessed nonsense] > > not difficult to realize you are a psychopath > > Get over it ..ratty. If you want to discuss physics, then do it. Stop your > continual insults, they are boring and tedious > > [snip more obsessed nonsense] --------------- tell us about your Superfart: (a photon with a frequancy of one cycle PER 100 BILLION YEARS please !! because that is your real physics (:-) ie you still support that physics or may be cant find a 'lather' to get off it ?? (:-) ---------------- >> > not difficult to realize you are a psychopath >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > --------------- > tell us about your Superfart: You mean the one you proposed and won't shut up about? > (a photon with a frequancy of one cycle > PER 100 BILLION YEARS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cant find a 'lather' to get off it ?? (:-) > ---------------- More obsession from poor little Porat. >>> > not difficult to realize you are a psychopath >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >More obsession from poor little Porat. Going on 3 years now. I'm surprised his memory spans that period of time. On Aug 29, 6:31 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > >>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------------- (:-) Hi superfart s that last more than 3 years or may be 100 billion years ?? anyway Gisse and jekyle will last much lerss than that (:-) Y.P -------------------- > On Aug 29, 6:31 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Hi superfart s that last more than 3 years > or may be 100 billion years ?? You are still obsessed with htis superfart idea of yours. Why? > anyway > Gisse and jekyle > will last much lerss than that (:-) Longer than you will, old man. I'm sure it won't be long for us to wait with the way your mind is going now. Senility is a sad thing to watch. > > On Aug 29, 6:31 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ----------------- Hi little Goebeless BTW Jekyle is cheating while saying he i s British ! as usual chaeting is his bread and butter ------------------------ > Hi little Goebeless You have these weird delusions about who you think I am. > BTW Jekyle is cheating while saying > he i s British ! Did I say that? I think you're deluded again. > as usual chaeting is his bread and butter I don't cheat. > > On Aug 29, 6:31 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - -------------- psychopath ---------------------------- > psychopath Another useless post by Porat Dear Jeckyl: >> psychopath > > Another useless post by Porat Well, he did spell it right. David A. Smith > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > ie some experimental evidence ?? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have neither theoretical nor experimental support? Or your claims about > photons having (rest) mass. http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+rest-mass+absorbed > > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > - Show quoted text - --------------------- and in addtion tothe above question about gravity influence inside the nucleus my question is is there a DIRECT influence of gravity onthe nuc it i sobvius that there is an INDIRECT INFLUENCE ** through the outer constituents of the Atom** qwe onow that an atom of iron is falling down but is it a direct influence on the nuc or is it aninfluence on the electrons neutrinos , magnetic or electric fields etc while that external to the nuc influence on it come throuhgthe mediation of the outer constituents of the Atom ?? !! (i am quite sure that at this starge no one can bring sound evidence for that !!) so it is as is just wild guesses and not sound physics ps i am one of the last ones that is agasinst guesses in physics but *they must be defined as such !! rigth ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- > and in addtion tothe above question about > gravity influence inside the nucleus > > my question is > is there a DIRECT influence of gravity > onthe nuc What other sort of influence could it have? As long as there are masses, there is gravity. > it i sobvius that there is an INDIRECT INFLUENCE Is it? > ** through the outer constituents of the Atom** Are you talking the gravitational force between electrons and the nucleus? > qwe onow that an atom of iron is falling down Poor thing, I hope it doesn't hurt itself > but is it a direct influence on the nuc > or is it aninfluence on the electrons > neutrinos , magnetic or electric fields etc > while that external to the nuc influence > on it come throuhgthe mediation of the > outer constituents of the Atom ?? !! Eh? > (i am quite sure that at this starge no one can bring > sound evidence for that !!) I doubt anyone understands what you're saying > so it is as is just wild guesses > and not sound physics > ps i am one of the last ones that is > agasinst guesses in physics Seeng wild guesses that are usually contrary to known theories make up the bulk of your 'ideas'. > but > *they must be defined as such !! > rigth ?? They must be supported by some theory or observation, or be able to predict or explain things we can observe, to be useful. It also helps if they can be expressed in a way that make sense. > > > > > > >>>Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > > > > > >>>Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > IN GENERAL > AND ESPECIALLY IN PHYSICS It's not a principle of any science. You made it up to suit this argument. Your "principle" would rule out a number of predictions which were made prior to experimental confirmation. - Randy > > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > > Where's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom Roberts However, from 1905 Relativity I derived a formula that takes into account the tiny variation in frequency of a photon emitted by an electron inside an atom, owed to the tiny variation in its rest mass that depends on its position in a gravitational field. The result is totally compatible with the Pound&Rebka experiment. As we have here no singularities, predictions different from the GR ones related to black holes can be obtained. You can see the details in the following thread: Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21961 de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4 RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > However, from 1905 Relativity I derived a formula that takes into > account the tiny variation in frequency of a photon emitted by an > electron inside an atom, owed to the tiny variation in its rest mass > that depends on its position in a gravitational field. To do so you must add additional assumptions to "1905 Relativity" (aka SR). Einstein did just that in 1907-1914, and found that all such attempts were self-inconsistent, until he (finally) discovered the field equations of GR. I _STRONGLY_ suspect you will find your assumptions are likewise self-inconsistent, if you examine them as carefully as Einstein did his. Indeed, today we know that while there are many ways to obtain the equations of GR, there are very few generalizations of it that are self-consistent, and there are no simpler theories that are self-consistent. Tom Roberts > va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > However, from 1905 Relativity I derived a formula that takes into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To do so you must add additional assumptions to "1905 Relativity" (aka > SR). I didn't add any additional assumption. We are not talking about something to be done, but to something done already, and you have all the details. Please, make explicit reference to the supposed additional assumptions you are mentioning. > Einstein did just that in 1907-1914, and found that all such > attempts were self-inconsistent, until he (finally) discovered the field [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the equations of GR, there are very few generalizations of it that are > self-consistent, and there are no simpler theories that are self-consistent. We are not talking about GR, but to 1905 Relativity. We are not talking about what Einstein did, but to something that he didn't. > Tom Roberts RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: >>> However, from 1905 Relativity I derived a formula that takes into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> SR). > I didn't add any additional assumption. Sure you did! Einstein's 1905 paper does not mention gravitation -- you need some assumption about how to relate gravitation to SR. If you consider it carefully, you will find that either it is self-inconsistent, or is equivalent to GR (or one of its generalizations). I have no interest in proof-reading your papers. Tom Roberts > va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: > >> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > consider it carefully, you will find that either it is > self-inconsistent, or is equivalent to GR (or one of its generalizations). In the 1905 Einstein's Jun 30 paper, at the end of paragraph 4, in the unique real example in all the paper, Einstein considers an accelerated clock by the Earth's gravitational field. He considers it the "moving system" and applies to it a Lorentz transform to calculate a time dilation. Then, your statement "Einstein's 1905 paper does not mention gravitation" seems to be false. In the Introduction we can read {...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purpose of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" ) to the status of a postulate,...} Do you consider gravitation out of mechanics? Since the publication of Newton's "Principia..." in 1684, gravitation and mechanics remain united. More ever, in Galileo's ship we can find water drops falling from the ceiling to the floor, gravitation was always included in Galileo's Principle of Relativity. Almost at the beginning of paragraph 2 we can read a second version of Einstein's Principle of Relativity: {The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change...} Here we can find a clear exclusion of gravity from the 1905 Einstein's Principle of Relativity. Evidently when Einstein writes {The laws...} his intention was to exclude gravity from them. Who can prove the contrary? > I have no interest in proof-reading your papers. > > Tom Roberts RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) On Aug 28, 5:31 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > >> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a time dilation. Then, your statement "Einstein's 1905 paper does not > mention gravitation" seems to be false. No, you have misunderstood. He considered a *closed path* of a moving clock. This is similar to the twin paradox. The mechanism by which the clock returns to its initial location is as irrelevant to the time dilation as the details of the traveling twin's rocket burn is to the time dilation there. The fact that there *happens to be* gravity present in the case of a satellite or that there *happens* to be a rocket engine used by the traveling twin does *not* mean that SR is a theory that encompasses gravity or rocket engine dynamics. In fact, in the example that he really wrote about, he mentioned a difference between a clock at the Earth's equator and a clock at the Earth's pole. Gravity is not necessary to hold the clock to the Earth at the equator -- four bolts, washers, and hex nuts would do the job nicely. Are you going to tell me that SR time dilation is a theory that encompasses metal tensile strength? PD > On Aug 28, 5:31 pm, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------------ now see the title of that thread!! there are locations in which there i sno gravity *in microcosm* !! that is shown by the very quantum nature of gravity and not only gravity quantum means it i snot slread evenly !! so there are locations (even very small ones) that gravity doe snot exiast there how about that innovative idea ?? i dont expect an answer from private parrot enemies ps th e question is not for the psychopath jekyle or the crook Gisse or the parrot crook PD !! TIA Y.Porat > now see the title of that thread!! Oh look .. there is is > there are locations in which there i sno gravity > *in microcosm* !! Really .. why would there be? Where would they be? > that is shown by the very quantum nature > of gravity What quantum nature of gravity is that? You got any experiments that show that? Or are you talking about the theorised 'graviton' particles? A bit like a photon that is a quantum of EM? > and not only gravity > quantum means > it i snot slread evenly !! "i snot slread" .. WTH does that mean? > so there are locations (even very small ones) > that gravity doe snot exiast there Really .. So does the quantum nature of light mean there are places where there cannot be EM (but there can be at other places nearby)? > how about that innovative idea ?? About as "innovative" as most of your unsupported wild guesses. > i dont expect an answer from private parrot enemies You have parrots as enemies .. why .. don't you like birds either? I know you hate people. > ps > th e question is not for the psychopath jekyle > or the crook Gisse or the parrot crook PD !! You mean those people who know you are an idiot and basically a nasty bitter old man ? Don't worry . .those who don't already know will find out soon enough. > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? Maybe you want to rephrase your question so it means something? Atoms are affected by gravity. Socks > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? Why not do a little reading and find out? > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not Because it's none of your business. f.ck off. Signature"did ke bahAr, moghe'e golo gasht, bAyad tA zAnu dar lajan foruraft, va dar tAbestAn dar bAghe tutun va miveh va chAy aragh rikht, dar pAyiz pAdang zad, va dar zemestAn pas az Anke dastranje in se fasl tahvile arbAb gardid bAyad gham khord va sarmA." - Bozorg Alavi > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? One problem is that standard atomic theories presume a background space and time that's in a sense "fixed" while the standard theory of gravitation models gravity as certain variation in that background itself. Such variability of the "background" brings the standard mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics to an almost complete halt. This problem is very challenging because each theory relies very heavily on their respective mathematical assumptions concerning the "background". Any simple-minded fusion of both would most likely require an almost total mathematical gutting of each. -- Jan Bielawski : > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. : > Where's the problem? [...][see the preceding post for the full context] SNAP! > Why can the gravity force (allegedly) not incorporated into atomic world. > Where's the problem? Gravitational field also generally derivable to be gradient of electromagnetic field once it is expressible at with a function of zero point field at vacuum. We can also get understanding knowing gamma factor mentioned here: As example a perfect vacuum having two electrons: Einstein's two- points problem: These electrons will with repulsive forces separate each other to distance until gravitational force will produce effect pulling them towards each other which is per gamma-factor giving generally ratio of electromagnetic/gravitational of approx. 10^42. Gravity thus have generally inverse effect or it is an "inverse process" of nature. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.