 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2005Chainging speed in gravity not explained by Einstein
Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. But why do objects speed up in freefall? Changing direction is explained. Changing speed is not. What causes the speed up in freefall? Einsteins matches it mathematically but does not explain it. There is more to gravity than following a curve. There is the cause of change in speed. Anybody want to guess what explains that? Einstein doesn't have the explanation. So I don't want to hear that he does!!! No cowards invited. no physics macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Einstein doesn't have the explanation. > So I don't want to hear that he does!!! So you want Einstein's theory of freefall, but we can't use his theory, since you've dismissed it as being an invalid explanation. Do you see a "logic bomb" in your post? > No cowards invited. The seats have been taken. > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. > But why do objects speed up in freefall? > Changing direction is explained. Changing speed is not. > What causes the speed up in freefall? Using your own, borderline sane, analogy - a curve would explain the increase in speed. > Einsteins matches it mathematically but does not explain it. > There is more to gravity than following a curve. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So I don't want to hear that he does!!! > No cowards invited. What are you asking here Mitch/Nick/GodBotheringBot? Are you trying to say God creates the acceleration in freefall? If so then it truly is time for you to go away and annoy some other newsgroups. In physics you explain things mathematically, not in such a manner that people with the skill of my cat can understand. This is why, until you learn some basic mathematics, the concepts you are trying to discuss are so far beyond your grasp you don't even know when you are wrong. Can you show how the models don't show acceleration? >Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. >That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >So I don't want to hear that he does!!! >No cowards invited. Spacetime is a four dimensional structure. The change in speed is explained as well as the change in direction, and is contained in the (0,i) and the (i,0) terms of the metric.  Signature"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the characters that today provide us a common language are corporate creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet >>Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. >>That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >... > Spacetime is a four dimensional structure. Actually, reading your reply Greg, it occurred to me, Nick's original post doesn't even deserve a GR reply. If changing speed is not possible, then Newtonian physics isn't applicable either. Any constant acceleration produces a changing speed. It's an experiment he can perform in his living room. This is an experiment beginning physics students do in highschool. SignatureRandy M. Dumse Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear. > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. > But why do objects speed up in freefall? [snip crap] Hey f.cking imbecile, how much has free fall ISS FUBAR "speeded up" in the years of its orbit? Idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf Gravity is a force, regardless of how it is explained. So at sublight speeds, Netwons laws can quite easily descibe the effect of this force on a mass. Force on a body results in acceleration, or none depending on the resisting forces. But if the resisting forces are overcome, then the body will speed accelerate and therefore will have a velocity which will grow over time. Just integrate acceleration then you have the velocity. DP. > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So I don't want to hear that he does!!! > No cowards invited. > Gravity is a force, regardless of how it is explained. Explanation is paramount. > > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So I don't want to hear that he does!!! > > No cowards invited. Good luck on that one. >> Gravity is a force, regardless of how it is explained. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > So I don't want to hear that he does!!! >> > No cowards invited. Space moves. macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Space moves. macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Space moves. 8 beers into a bowling match, I swear the pin's moved while my balls we're rolling. I can now quote a famous physcist's named Macaroni, for the gutter ball effect. I'm using that one!!! Thanks Ken Space moves and transmits its motion to matter. macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Space moves and transmits its motion > to matter. That's too soft, the relation of material objects varying relative locations is establishd by photon exchange, such as radar or eqivalently signal distance. What I suggested is simpler and it's what the cops use to give a speeding ticket. Ken Its a space motion pushing things. There is no such thing as a pull. It looks that way if you attribute gravity only to matter. >From matters point of view it could be a pull. >From space its a push. macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Its a space motion pushing things. > There is no such thing as a pull. > It looks that way if you attribute > gravity only to matter. as you clearly have no idea why do you keep posting? f.ck off and play with tj on his dream ships. macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Its a space motion pushing things. > There is no such thing as a pull. > It looks that way if you attribute > gravity only to matter. > >From matters point of view it could be a pull. > >From space its a push. Yes, I see what you mean. It's been awhile but there is an analogy of gravity that uses moving space, and it works quite well. The speed of the space radially is the same as the escape velocity. Yup, sounds ok to me. Ken macromi...@internetCDS.com wrote: > Space moves. 8 beers into a bowling match, I swear the pin's moved while my balls we're rolling. I can now quote a famous physcist's named Macaroni, for the gutter ball effect. I'm using that one!!! Thanks Ken > Explanation is paramount. so why dont you ever f.cking explain anything? You just don't get it 56terd!!! > Free fall is following more than just a curve in space. > That curved direction is revealed through curved space-time. > But why do objects speed up in freefall? > Changing direction is explained. Changing speed is not. You just said it was explained. Each velocity is a different timelike direction in spacetime. This mode of description (and the concept of spacetime in general) has nothing to do with Relativity. It's equally applicable to all physics, Newtonian/Galilean, Poincare/Minkowski, even Platonic. The same thing holds true of Newtonian gravity. For GR, at ordinary velocities, almost all the effect of gravity is curvature in time. For Newtonian gravity, all of it is. Not explained by Einstein. Thats whats said in the title! According to Einstein curvature is half and half Half space half time. > Not explained by Einstein. Thats whats said > in the title! > > According to Einstein curvature is half and half > Half space half time. Idiot. Provide a literature citation, idiot. Annalen der Physik 4, XVII, pp. 891-921 (1905) Annalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916) Idiot. <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1SPP2CM6T67BP/103-1 611547-7429452> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html Idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
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.