Gravity never zero

[hansda]

As usual with you, this is nonsense.

That could only apply if:

A) there were no other masses in this hypothetical universe of yours and

This is the case of before BBang ; when there was only energy and no mass .

For other case where mass is zero ; massless particles can be considered .

B) if energy in sufficient quantities didn't cause gravity.

Its true without energy , there cannot be any gravity . But mere energy can not cause gravity ; some masses has to be there .

Fail.

[Dywyddyr]

This is the case of before BBang ; when there was only energy and no mass .

Nothing to do with your argument.

For other case where mass is zero ; massless particles can be considered .

For what?

But mere energy can not cause gravity ; some masses has to be there .

Wrong.
As explained.

Another fail.

[hansda]

Nothing to do with your argument.


For what?


Wrong.
As explained.

Another fail.

Do you mean to say , there was gravity before Big Bang ?

[Dywyddyr]

Do you mean to say , there was gravity before Big Bang ?

Why do you not read?

It's quite simple: gravity didn't "form" as a force until after the BB occurred.

Me. Post #90.
Which a different question altogether from energy causing gravity.

[hansda]

Why do you not read?


Me. Post #90.
Which a different question altogether from energy causing gravity.

What i mentioned , in my earlier post #87 : in the extreme case when mass is zero , gravity can become zero .

Pre BB is one such extreme case .

Another case of mass being zero is massless particle .

Between two massed particles , there is gravity ; but there is no gravity between two massless particles .

[Dywyddyr]

What i mentioned , in my earlier post #87 : in the extreme case when mass is zero , gravity can become zero .

Pre BB is one such extreme case

Um, false.
What you actually said was:

If the mass gets converted into energy , mass can become zero ; so gravity also can become zero at a very extreme case

If there is a mass to be converted then it's obviously NOT pre-BB.

Another case of mass being zero is massless particle .
Between two massed particles , there is gravity ; but there is no gravity between two massless particles .

And you're still ignoring the fact that with sufficient energy and no mass there will be gravity.

Another fail.

[Robittybob1]

GR the R is for Relativity! I've closed the page on Einstein sorry.
But the speed of gravity could have a factor in it. It was hard to find a simple answer. (Still looking)

[Dywyddyr]

GR the R is for Relativity!

Oh dear...

There has to be something about "Relativity" in your answer.

I've closed the page on Einstein sorry.

Because you're a crank?

But the speed of gravity could have a factor in it. It was hard to find a simple answer. (Still looking)

[wellwisher]

If we started the universe with only energy, that means the only reference that would exist would be a speed of light reference. Matter on the other hand, will require this C reference, drop below C since matter cannot exist at C. We need a reference slow down from C to <C to be able to condense energy into matter.

The problem that I often see, is we try to use the earth reference to explain the BB, even though this reference did not exist at the BB. There is imaginary factor when we use this after the fact looking glass. I try to stick with only references that could have been available at the BB, such as C and C-.

Since gravity is associated with space-time via GR, to approach zero gravity, you would also need space-time to be completely expanded all the way to a theoretical zero reference.

[Dywyddyr]

Why do persist in posting absolute bollocks?
Is it some uncontrollable compulsion you have, or do you consider it to be "clever" or "funny"?

[Robittybob1]

Oh dear...



Because you're a crank?

You need reporting. You did not need to call me a crank.
We were discussing your oddball science. It is you who should be finding the references not me. I had some sleep and closed the Google search on Einstein and GR WRT Mercury and you call me a "crank". That is unfair and unjustified.

[Dywyddyr]

You need reporting. You did not need to call me a crank.

Really?
You don't think someone who claims to have "closed the page on Einstein" is to be taken seriously?

We were discussing your oddball science.

Um, no. It's not "oddball" at all.

I had some sleep and closed the Google search on Einstein and GR WRT Mercury and you call me a "crank". That is unfair and unjustified.

You mean, for example you missed this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ion_of_Mercury
or this:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node116.html

or any of the others available?

[Robittybob1]

Really?
You don't think someone who claims to have "closed the page on Einstein" is to be taken seriously?


Um, no. It's not "oddball" at all.


You mean, for example you missed this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ion_of_Mercury
or this:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node116.html

or any of the others available?

"You don't think someone who claims to have "closed the page on Einstein" is to be taken seriously?" When you put it like that! I simply meant I was reading a study on the history of Einstein and I had closed it down before going to bed. I'm not going to look for it again.

It was your "Energy density creates gravity" that we were trying to resolve.

[Dywyddyr]

"You don't think someone who claims to have "closed the page on Einstein" is to be taken seriously?" When you put it like that! I simply meant I was reading a study on the history of Einstein and I had closed it down before going to bed. I'm not going to look for it again.

Like I said: your education is lacking.

It was your "Energy density creates gravity" that we were trying to resolve.

One more time: not "mine". Einstein's.

[Robittybob1]

Like I said: your education is lacking.


One more time: not "mine". Einstein's.

Insulted again this morning. When is it going to stop?
I wanted you to specifically show me the words that Einstein used to justify you passing your bad science off as belonging to Einstein.
It is more that just giving me headings. I want you to quote me an actual sentence.

[Dywyddyr]

I wanted you to specifically show me the words that Einstein used to justify you passing your bad science off as belonging to Einstein.

FFS!
E=mc².
My bad science?
It's "bad" because...?

It is more that just giving me headings. I want you to quote me an actual sentence.

In fact the gravity field created by the suns gravity is what causes the shift in Mercury's orbit that Newton's theory of gravity could not explain.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304975
for example.

[Robittybob1]

FFS!
E=mc².
My bad science?
It's "bad" because...?



http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304975
for example.

Energy can be converted into mass as per that equation but that does not explain the how or where.
So that takes us back full circle. Was there gravity in the beginning of the BB?

[AlexG]

Here Robittybob1, read this, if you can.


Relativity, chapter 15:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

I know you just want something short and simple so you can understand it, but you actually have to read chapter 15 in conjunction with chapter 23.

[Dywyddyr]

Energy can be converted into mass as per that equation but that does not explain the how or where.

What?

So that takes us back full circle. Was there gravity in the beginning of the BB?

One more time: FFS!

It's quite simple: gravity didn't "form" as a force until after the BB occurred.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=90

[Robittybob1]

Here Robittybob1, read this, if you can.


Relativity, chapter 15:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

I know you just want something short and simple so you can understand it, but you actually have to read chapter 15 in conjunction with chapter 23.

I'll give it a go. Read a bit of it and I had questions. I need a personal scientist teacher right in the room with me.

I'm wondering where to start on it? I can't start too in depth.