|
|
Re: Gravity as Actual Field versus Geometry
Posted:
Feb 28, 2012 12:02 AM
|
|
On Feb 26, 12:13 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:19 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 8:54 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 8:35 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 6:02 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> > > > First, what you call "shielding" does not exist in other field
> > > > theories like electromagnetism. What does exist is a variable field
> > > > coupling that manifests as the relative permittivity and/or
> > > > permeability of a material being different from the "absolute" vacuum
> > > > values. From those materials we fabricate approximations like Faraday
> > > > cages and mumetal "magnetic shielding".
>
> > > > To do analogous things with gravitation we need to find (or
> > > > manufacture!) materials with a measurable variable relative
> > > > gravitational constant different from the vacuum value.
>
> > > > Nothing else will do; from Laithwaite's gyroscopes to Podkletnov's
> > > > spinning discs. They're the equivalent of trying to build working
> > > > electronics using only copper.
>
> > > > Simplistic gravitation field theories predict spin 2 gravitons which
> > > > we've never detected. Why do you think that might be?
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > The lab experiments to date on gravitomagnetism seem to support the
> > > > geometrical model but some results, still being verified, seem to show
> > > > the usually accepted symmetries don't quite work. I won't provide
> > > > cites; google gravitomagnetism.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > I don't personally care for "beliefs" concerning physics. Either a
> > > > theory is correct (according to Reality) or it isn't. All current
> > > > theories have limits, some more removed from Reality than others.
>
> > > > "Belief" in science IMO should be replaced by "degree of confidence
> > > > based on current experimental knowledge".
>
> > > > > > 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,
>
> > > > OK, what would that be? Do you have physical examples?
>
> > > > > > Have all the fun in your life that you can. It only comes once in
> > > > > > your life (unless you think differently).
>
> > > > Well, yes. ;>)
>
> > > > > A pendulum has straight downward weight always as it swings...
>
> > > > The direction of "down" at the ends of the pendulum's swing are not
> > > > parallel, they intersect at the center of the Earth.
>
> > > > This is not trivial.
>
> > > > > 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...
>
> > > > It has properties *we* haven't imagined. That's why we still screw
> > > > around with rockets.
>
> > > > > 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...
>
> > > > Religion is always picking fights with science, never the other way
> > > > around. What science does that provokes religion is to explain the
> > > > previously unexplainable, or to correct religion-based misconceptions.
>
> > > > The Catholic church burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo for
> > > > challenging religion's dogma that the Sun orbited the Earth.
>
> > > > The Church later apologized for being violently wrong about that.
>
> > > > Religion now knows of mankind's proper place in Earth's ecology;
> > > > apes have learned (and taught each other) sign language and have
> > > > wondered about life after death.
>
> > > > Religion ought to accept its losses. Religion now knows that the
> > > > Earth is unique; it is not representative of a common type of planet,
> > > > as far as xenoplanetologists can tell.
>
> > > > Religion now knows that there exists no direct evidence of life
> > > > anywhere else in the universe.
>
> > > > Humankind is indeed special in many ways, just not demonstrably in
> > > > the ways religion says it is. That shouldn't matter unless religion is
> > > > afraid more of its core beliefs will also be falsified by science in
> > > > the future.
>
> > > > The choice is then accept evidence or support fantasy.
>
> > > > I choose evidence.
>
> > > > > Me and Alia wish to represent America.
> > > > > God bless America...
>
> > > > The USA is not a Xtian nation. Get over it.
>
> > > > Mark L. Fergerson
>
> > > Who do you speak for?
>
> > Non-Xtian Americans. Don't like us? What do you plan to do about it?
>
> > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> To tell you that Hawking lost on account of starting a war against
> religion that is dangerous.
First, what do you think he lost?
Second, as I said, he didn't "start a war". He expressed his opinion
just as you have expressed yours. His opinions seem to frighten and
anger you, enough that you want to deny him the same freedom of speech
you claim as an inalienable right.
You are a hypocrite for that alone.
Finally, what do you mean "that is dangerous", are you threatening a
"religious war"? Why am I not surprised.
If you want Hawking to keep his scientific opinions to himself, why
don't you show him the way by keeping your superstitions to yourself?
Oh, by the way; do you have any contribution to the scientific
content of this thread?
Mark L. Fergerson
|
|
