Gravitational mass and Inertial mass

You, um, mentioned 'cosmology' and 'pseudoquackery' in the same sentence. That joke's over 50 years old, and it's still funny! "Standard" and "acceptable" are also killer, in that context...

Sorry; couldn't resist. I've been taking krash661 lessons. Please go on talking about the flat Earth and turtles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's ignorant popscience trash. It isn't standard at all. Einstein made a clear distinction between spacetime and space, he described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space, and he modelled motion through it using what we call curved spacetime. Do not cling to ignorance. Understand what I'm telling you. And when I refer you to something Einstein said, read it. Then when it doesn't concur with the popscience trash, reject the latter, not Einstein.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you do, with every post.

You would prefer to hold on to the select holy words of Einstein, ignore any of the mathematics that Einstein produced, and ignore the basic processed of gathering evidence in physics since Newton, i.e., measurement evidence.

For example, you claim that all physicists and astronomers are wrong in their determinations of galactic rotation curves. Your evidence: because you feel Einstein would say so. You haven't ever calculated a rotation curve and you have never looked at a calculation of such a curve. Yet your commitment to a cherry-picked few of Einstein's words is what you base your crusades upon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From James R's repose to you, and your continued misunderstandings, it seems you still do not understand what he was saying. Again you read the words in black and white of others, too often without any consideration or understanding of the context, which inevitably leads to misunderstanding... Very often when physicists, even knowledgable lay persons, attempt to explain "the physics", in a lay context, which they understand best within the context of the math, the context as James pointed out below, becomes even more important... But you seem blind to the detail.

Again you are leaping to a theoretical conclusion from limited objective data. The clock rates of the two optical clocks supports/confirms GR predictions that clocks at different locations in a gravity well will not remain synchronized. It even says something about how location in a gravity well, affects the frequency associated with the clocks function. But then jumping to the conclusion that this then says anything objective about the speed of light is fantasy. GR remains a theory and many of its successful predictions remain theoretically associated only as a function of the fact that they originate from a common theoretical basis.

Every time you present this or a similar response, as above, I get an image of a child with his fingers in his ears screaming "la la la la la", to avoid hearing and thinking about something that challenges what they BELIEVE, as if even hearing an opposing perspective is somehow a threat... If you know something to be true, there is no need...

Again, Farsight.., where in the above have you provided any objective proof that any concentration of energy causes gravity? There is sufficient evidence to say with some certainty that mass and gravity are in fact associated, but until you can establish the existence of a gravitational field, where there is a confirmed concentration of energy and no involved mass, whether it is true or not, you cannot say that energy causes gravity with certainty..........., it remains a conclusion of theory.

And still it seems you have difficulty not only with context, but any understanding of the difference between what is theoretical and what is known as a matter of direct experience and observation.... And again I must add conclusions drawn from what you imagine and/or believe cannot in this context be considered direct experience.., though I am sure they often do seem so!

 

Are you really that whacked? Other than the last sentence paddoboy's post was a direct quote from a Q&A section of the official Stanford GP-B cite. Yes, the section was a lay oriented interpretation and there are some competing explanations for some of what is implied.., in that lay explanation.., but really, pop science trash? I can say with some certainty, since I followed the GP-B experiment closely, those involved with the experiment and the information presented on that Stanford website, have a better understanding of the physics and Einstein's contributions than anything I have seen you present... Which suggests your views are uniformed pop science trash.

Again it seems that anyone who presents a perspective opposed to your beliefs, is wrong! Even those directly involved in experiments like the GP-B experiment.

 

Watch my lips: it's popscience trash.

Yes, popscience trash. Bad science. Wrong science. Garbage. Now go and look at what I said above. Space isn't the same thing as spacetime because the latter models time as something akin to a space dimension. It depicts the "block universe". There's no motion in it. But light does move through space, which isn't curved where a gravitational field is. Instead it's inhomogeneous. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said. Get used to it.

Well they aren't. My views are backed by Einstein Baez Koks Wright Magueijo etc.

There's plenty of people involved in experiments like gravity probe who agree with me. For example I've referred to this webpage describing gravitomagnetism in terms of vortex and twist. However the http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11134.html article is popscience trash.

 

That provides a decent test for BS: If Farsight says a thing is so, then it can't be factual except by accident.

 

This is clearly wrong. Spacetime isn't space because they are two separate geometric entities.

Spacetime doesn't depict a block universe. The only way to depict motion in any way is to use spacetime.

Can you show us any application of Einstein's where he uses inhomogeneous space and what the inhomogeneous space is in the application?

While you are at it, you can answer the question that you have been dodging (seemingly for a decade now from a number of people): please back up your claims that all physicists and astronomers are wrong in calculating galaxy rotation curves by showing their exact mistake and producing the correct calculation.

 

:roflmao:

Indeed it is evident that a hypodermic figures into your pseudo-physics. You are literally dreaming.

Get off the hypodermic, drop the hyperbolic arguments, and embrace the hyperbolic rotation projected onto the observation plane.

And get off the gas.


"hypodermic injection of energy"

:roflmao:

Q: How many crackheads does it take to transport one photon one meter in free space?

:roflmao:

A: Ask Farsight after he gets off the lawn swing.

:roflmao:

Run!! Flee!! You're afraid of me because I confront you with your own nonsense. We pay out the rope, and you use it as a noose.

Your nonsensical abortion of physics, attempting to relate gravity to a massless object, is a FAIL.

You are in violation of the rules for this forum. Take this crap to the lower threads.

Zero mass gravitational acceleration with a terminal OOOMPH!

Damn! Stabbed myself with 50cc of pure energy

Hey look folks I'm floating, massless yet accelerating and OOOOMPH! crashing into things!

Say: can anybody spare some change for . . . uh . . . bus fare ?


WHEEEEE!!!

OOOMPH !!!

:roflmao:

Who said science can't be fun ?

:shrug:

Oh yeah: Farsight said so. Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

Sorry I didn't realize I stepped on PhysBang. Let me reinstate that post here, with apologies!

This is clearly wrong. Spacetime isn't space because they are two separate geometric entities.

Spacetime doesn't depict a block universe. The only way to depict motion in any way is to use spacetime.

Can you show us any application of Einstein's where he uses inhomogeneous space and what the inhomogeneous space is in the application?

While you are at it, you can answer the question that you have been dodging (seemingly for a decade now from a number of people): please back up your claims that all physicists and astronomers are wrong in calculating galaxy rotation curves by showing their exact mistake and producing the correct calculation.

 

To be strictly technical, it doesn't matter. Spactime can be interpreted entirely of spacelike components. Only one of them is imaginary in the Minkowski manifold.

 

That's actually not true either, Einsteins General Theory of Relativity when applied to Hamiltonian constraints, the energy doesn't change over time, meaning there is no real time evolution: Instead you need massive systems moving in a complete 3 dimensional phase space rather than a symmetric four dimensional manifold.

 

Quote mining again?.., even if in this instance it was to a lay oriented article more to your liking.., meaning easier to twist to some agreement with what you believe...

Note the first link/reference, to further information, in the lay oriented NASA article you reference, is the The Stanford GP-B home page, from which the lay oriented article you decry as pop science trash can be accessed.

If it is good enough for NASA as a reference....

 

Once again, if you are so damn certain your interpretations on cosmology are correct, why not present this ToE you have for peer review? Oh yeah, that's right...Like most delusional alternative hypothesis pushers, the established scientific peer review system is stacked against you and one big conspiracy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So in essence, while preaching your alternative take on the situation, driven by delusions of grandeur, you are also a conspiracy adherent too.
Please note:
If you were in anyway serious with all your nonsensical take on cosmology, you and your ilk, would not be here.
But these open forums are the only outlet you have to spread your nonsense.
And so the rest of us must grin and bear it. :shrug:

 

REIKU go away

 

You're crazy. You're like a creationist. You cling like a limpet to popscience trash and you dismiss what Einstein etc said as out-of-context quote-mining, because it doesn't match your convictions. And you won't talk about the subject of the thread, all you're doing is trolling, again and again. You don't talk physics, and there's no talking to you. So that's enough, like paddoboy, you're on filter.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pot, kettle, black!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pot, kettle, black!

 

Unlike you, Farsight? After all, you have been saying for over ten years that every physicist and astronomer in the world is incorrect in how they calculate a galaxy rotation curve, but you haven't ever looked at their calculations.

 

There is that image of a child with his fingers in his ears again.., or perhaps using ignore just means you are tired of putting your fingers in your ears and mumbling to yourself. (Use of the ignore feature has always seemed to me an indication of a weak argument.)

Farsight, you may not see this but I have been, I think clear from the start about what bothers me about your posts. Issues which could have been addressed in discussion, had you been inclined to discuss. Some have been more fully discussed in the past.

I did go back and glance over your past posts in this thread and found no real evidence of you discussing any physics. You repeatedly fail to respond when anyone challenges your opinions and asks for evidence, or some reasonable proof... The only evidence you seem to present is your own misinterpretations, claims that Einstein and others agree with you, something almost everyone involved here have challenged and disagreed with. And when challenged you respond as you have above, or by unsupported or obscure reference to authority.

Reading through your earlier posts, I did run across the following which seems a reasonable description of your own arguments.

Most of my objections to your posts and general position involve issues that I have raised in more detail with you in the past, interpretation of the intent of Einstein's Leyden Address and the NIST clock experiment just two of several. Your response has always been the same... And has seldom if ever included anything more significant than your assertion that your interpretation and understanding of any subject matter is beyond challenge.

If you really see my posts challenging your beliefs as trolling, report me. It may actually get some where, as in looking back in this thread, it could be argued that continually referencing your options as beliefs and asking for explanations you constantly refuse to address or correct, could be seen as trolling.

 

Totally in agreement.
I have been advised to put other/s on ignore, but as you say, it seems a childish way out. :shrug: