|
|
Re: Gravity as Actual Field versus Geometry
Posted:
Feb 28, 2012 8:20 PM
|
|
On Feb 28, 11:38 am, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:02 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> The war against religious belief...
There is no such "war" going on except in the sense that religious
zealots like you attack anyone who does not share your untestable
beliefs.
> > 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.
And, you are still a hypocrite.
> > 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?
>
> Geometry is round aether...
Show evidence.
> > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not woried...
Of course you're not. You have your untestable beliefs and will
attack anyone who does not share them.
Mark L. Fergerson
|
|
