 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / September 2006Classical and modern physics
NEWTONIAN GRAVITY 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 is needed. EINSTEINIAN GRAVITY 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. Einsteinian gravity is a part of modern physics, but something important seems to be missing. It cannot describe the reality. There is a possible explanation for gravity, but it is the only one: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen [...] > Einsteinian gravity is a part of modern physics, but something important > seems to be missing. It cannot describe the reality. Oh good, what does GR not describe? Don't say "dark matter", the evidence is heavily leaning towards there being non-baryonic matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically. > There is a possible explanation for gravity, but it is the only one: > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Do you even read what you write? You just said Newtonian gravity is wrong, and the entire mathematical basis of your theory is Newtonian gravity. Please remind the class about your education in physics, Henry. > NEWTONIAN GRAVITY > The great physicist Isaac Newton created a mathematical model of gravity, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Your theory is no debunked but you do not have the balls to try to rebut: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/ea1 e04802f6664ca/4a6f6c259286a082?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fea1e04802f6664ca%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_4a6f6c259286a082 But you will keep posting your crackpot theory which essentially says that rate of fall depends on the mass of the falling body. Mike > NEWTONIAN GRAVITY > 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. Hey crackpot, this is what Newton said about the mechanism of gravity: "...and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy..." Newton > What kind of a mechanism is needed to make that possible? We need > interaction [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Objects are moving straight ahead with constant speeds. It is space, that is > not "straight". Not quite. You probably misread this from some magazine article. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Einsteinian gravity is a part of modern physics, but something important > seems to be missing. It cannot describe the reality. Physical theories do not intend to describe reality but only provide a mathmatical model of the phenomena that manifest in reality. You are a crackpot. > There is a possible explanation for gravity, but it is the only one: > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Your theory is now debunked since falling space cannot fix the distance r of gravitational influence between two bodies but can be chosen arbitrarily to cover the total spacetime that falls on those bodies which includs an undetermined number of other bodies. In Newtonian theory and weak field limit solution of GR, the distance r is clearly efined as the distance between the ceter of mass of bodies. Do you understand the BIG difference? Mike > Henry Haapalainen "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> kirjoitti viestissä:aqDRg.19327$J14.2987@reader1.news.jippii.net... > NEWTONIAN GRAVITY > The great physicist Isaac Newton created a mathematical model of gravity, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen I revealed something negative about the maintenance, and now my posts seem to be visible only to me and the maintenance. If you could read this, tell me. Henry Haapalainen |
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
|
©2010 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.