Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Gravity as Actual Field versus Geometry
Posted:
Feb 25, 2012 9:02 PM
|
|
On Feb 25, 4:48 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 6:53 am, Joe Wisherman <joewisher...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Can General Relativity as geometry be just a classical limit or an
> > effective field theory which can someday become like newtonian
> > physics?
>
> > That is, supposed just for sake of discussion, experiments could
> > someday be shown that gravity could be shielded. Then gravity is not
> > accurately modeled by geometry and we may be dealing with some kind of
> > actual field or quantum version with something that is not spin 2 but
> > higher spin that can produce extra degree of freedom? What spin should
> > it be to produce gravity shielding for example?
>
> > If so, then General Relativity can be shown to be just an temporary
> > thing based on certain symmetries for spin 2 and doesn't really
> > describe the real world. Does anyone object to this? Or do you believe
> > gravity is geometry forever and ever? Thanks.
>
> xxein: I can't ever believe that gravity is just a geometry. And I
> don't believe any theory about anything that happens physically is
> correct. There is too much room for chaos.
>
> That said, there still exists generalisms. They exist as models
> (geometries) that sort of serve our purposes and yet defy closer
> physical scrutiny.
>
> There is no 'shield' for gravity except for a neutral position between
> or among gravities. Which one could make you go in that direction?
>
> This leads up to the so-called Pioneer anomaly. Within the solar
> system, we could predict paths and velocities. There was always
> something within it to gauge gravities and their directions. But it
> depended on the direction those gravities were to you. No one of
> those gravities had a complete control over Pioneer. Now all those
> gravities are behind Pioneer. They are now all getting a sort of a
> uni-direction to affect Pioneer.
>
> If you know anything about black holes, you would realize that light
> can't have an orbital speed of c at 2M (Schwartschild radius). It is
> just as dependent on gravitational orbital speed just like a
> spacecraft. But velocity is a different story.
>
> Gravity affects apparent speed in various ways. That is a subjective
> observation. But not a velocity in the realm of a gravity.
>
> That's why it is important to understand what gravity really is,
> physically instead of geometrically.
>
> I've done tons of work on this. First failing, of course. But when
> you begin to understand what gravity has to be in a logical physic,
> you will be amazed and can't stop thinking about it. But no gravity
> shield.
>
> I don't want to dictate. I'm only here to find out the questions and
> opinions. Quite amusing. Some make you really think. I like that.
> I suggest. It is a logic test. But I don't know everything. I don't
> even know if I wish I did. That would be the end of the fun of
> exploration. But some nonthinking idiots spoil the soup of this
> really badly.
>
> Have all the fun in your life that you can. It only comes once in
> your life (unless you think differently).
A pendulum has straight downward weight always as it swings...
So motion by gravity and weight by gravity do come together at the
same time... This combination of course is an important step...
Gravity is a large field with new properties Einstein did not even
imagine. Science goes on...
So do Alia and me. We are not going to be cooperating with Hawking
as he has an alterior motive. And that is to win us when he is
deserving of nothing...
Me and Alia wish to represent America.
God bless America...
Mitchell Raemsch
|
|
|
|
