Gravity Works Like This

paddoboy said:
Pssst...undefined, no one is paying any attention to you.....and in a couple of hours I will be going out to dinner so you wont have me to play with anymore.
Other odds and ends to do in between time also.....
How do you get to spend your full time at the computer?
You have 10 ToE's to clip and keep in order. :)

cue: Anyone's guess.. :)'
Click to expand...

I do research via computer. I also work on my ToE finishing for publication on my computer. I also take breaks to keep abreast of developments. Unlike you troll types, other people can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'. Poor paddo. Poor wifey. :(
 
Undefined said:
I do research via computer. I also work on my ToE finishing for publication on my computer. I also take breaks to keep abreast of developments. Unlike you troll types, other people can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'. Poor paddo. Poor wifey. :(
Click to expand...




Poor undefined....10 ToEs to look after. You need a Podiatrist.
 
Undefined said:
Unlike you troll types, other people can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'. Poor paddo. Poor wifey. :(
Click to expand...



Trolls??? Which ones undefined?
Those with the audacity to dare call you to order?
Those that dare not recognise your brilliance and pay due homage?
And of course a little old layman, that happens to have shown you up to be exactly what you are.

In all reality, whatever handle you chose to use now or in the future, you should learn to contain your unstable emotions.
They really are, doing you a lot of harm.
I must now be off.....car to clean before dinner, and friends coming over.
seeya! :)
 
paddoboy said:
Poor undefined....10 ToEs to look after. You need a Podiatrist.
Click to expand...

You are mistaking me for the string theorist mainstreamers who have 10E 500 multiverse possibilities to get through before they hit on anything at all resembling the patent reality of this ONE infinitely extending flat-space eternal universe which Ocam's starts with.

Silly ass making your silly gambits to distract from your silly trolling and ignorance. Poor wifey! :(
 
paddoboy said:
Trolls??? Which ones undefined?
Those with the audacity to dare call you to order?
Those that dare not recognise your brilliance and pay due homage?
And of course a little old layman, that happens to have shown you up to be exactly what you are.

In all reality, whatever handle you chose to use now or in the future, you should learn to contain your unstable emotions.
They really are, doing you a lot of harm.
I must now be off.....car to clean before dinner, and friends coming over.
seeya! :)
Click to expand...

Bwahhaha! Over the top you go, paddo! Delusions of 'grandeur' did you say before? When it's me and others been "calling you to order" for your inane irrelevant 'me too' uncomprehending of either 'side' points yet posting your BS insensibilities all over the place? Rich! But sad too. :(
 
Undefined said:
which Ocam's starts with.
Silly ass making your silly gambits to distract from your silly trolling and ignorance. Poor wifey! :(
Click to expand...

Occam's...It's Occam's undefined.
Happy to be of assistance..



Psst, My lovely wife is actually having a bit of a giggle at your expense.

Now who is the silly Ass??? :)

Sweet dreams undefined.
 
paddoboy said:
Occam's...It's Occam's undefined.
Happy to be of assistance..



Psst, My lovely wife is actually having a bit of a giggle at your expense.

Now who is the silly Ass??? :)

Sweet dreams undefined.
Click to expand...

Don't hide behind wifey, mate, it's not manly. Since you obviously haven't a clue or integrity or character worthy of her, she's probably afraid NOT to 'giggle' when you are present. Don't go troppo on her just because your own internet stupidity has been called, mate. Take it like a man, and do/learn better from now on, ok. For her sake if not for your own. Good luck.
 
Grumpy said:
*As I have pointed out Einstein knew that a static Universe would collapse, he thought the Universe was probably static, he added a "negative field" that kept the Universe static(or at least from collapsing in short order)and called it the Cosmological Constant. Amazingly, it shares many characteristic with what we know about Dark Energy(what little we know, I should say). Einstein did not know that the Universe was expanding until over 30 years after publishing GR. He never knew that his "biggest mistake" could turn out to be his most amazing "prediction" of all.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the CC already a part of Einstein's equation, and just needed tweaking in value Grumpy?

And yeah, an amazing turn-a-round for sure.Once again, showing the self correcting and rectifying nature of cosmology and science in general.
As much as I really hate to say it, it's very hard yakka for any physicist/cosmologist today that is not attached somewhat to a Uni or such.
The access to incredible 'scopes and probes are making discoveries and life for cosmologists just that much easier.
 
paddoboy

Wasn't the CC already a part of Einstein's equation, and just needed tweaking in value Grumpy?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it was put in there to keep the Universe from just collapsing, maintaining the steady state Einstein thought the Universe was in. When it was found that the Universe was actually expanding the CC was seen as unnecessary. Dark Energy shares several characteristics with the CC, but it is an entirely new mechanism and replaces the CC entirely. But the need and characteristics of the CC was a serendipitous coincidence.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
Dark Energy shares several characteristics with the CC, but it is an entirely new mechanism and replaces the CC entirely.
Click to expand...
Dark energy could share all the characteristics of a cosmological constant. If this is the case, then it is a case of real underdeterminacy in science.

The cosmological constant is merely a constant, a fact of the matter about how gravity works. But the same phenomena caused by it could be caused by a special energy field in the vacuum. It might be impossible to interact with this field except through gravity. Doh!

So far, attempts to find differences in this potential field that would differentiate it from a constant have come up nil. Interesting times.
 
PhysBang

The cosmological constant is merely a constant, a fact of the matter about how gravity works.
Click to expand...

WAS merely a constant, that Einstein later abandoned. It is not a true constant, it was a mistake, an ad hoc fix for the problem of the steady state Universe, which does not exist. Dark Energy is only a recently found phenomena, but both are fields that are characteristics of spacetime itself, that locally is weaker than gravity and only dominates it at bigger scales, and is evenly distributed over distance and cumulative over those distances. They are very similar.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
WAS merely a constant, that Einstein later abandoned. It is not a true constant, it was a mistake, an ad hoc fix for the problem of the steady state Universe, which does not exist.
Click to expand...
The so-called "cosmological constant", it is a true constant of an equation that is a more general version of the Einstein Field Equation than that Einstein used. (One could also make a more general equation than that.) There was no reason to include it, since there was no measurement of its effects, but there is no reason to ban it simply because Einstein was mistaken in introducing it. Just because Einstein thinks he makes a mistake is not a reason to reject something outright. Many people developed the use of the cosmological constant post-1917.

Dark Energy is only a recently found phenomena,
Click to expand...
Dark energy is a recently named theoretical entity that is complicated. In one sense, it just is the cosmological constant, flipped over to the other side of the Einstein field equation. That being said, their could be both, since the side of the equation that the dark energy is on should represent a source of energy. So we could have an equation with a cosmological constant and a vacuum energy.

Of course, we could also have dark energy be a source of energy that has an equation of state that means it evolves over cosmological time. So this wouldn't match a cosmological constant.

These have been investigated for decades, too. But there was never any decent and profitable attempt to measure until the last two decades.
 
Now that we all understand time and what optical clocks do and the coordinate speed of light, does anybody ready to talk about gravity?
 
Farsight said:
Now that we all understand time and what optical clocks do and the coordinate speed of light, does anybody ready to talk about gravity?
Click to expand...


Sure! Gravity is what reveals itself when mass warps/curves spacetime.
It, gravity/space/time is also non-linear and gravity tends to make gravity.
Other then that we do not have any deeper reality of the phenomena called gravity


Mass tells spacetime how to curve: Spacetime tells mass how to move:
 
paddoboy said:
Sure! Gravity is what reveals itself when mass warps/curves spacetime.
It, gravity/space/time is also non-linear and gravity tends to make gravity. Other then that we do not have any deeper reality of the phenomena called gravity
Click to expand...
Yes we do. Einstein explained why light curves, and we know about pair production and the wave nature of matter. Go read the OP. Note that nobody can fault it.

paddoboy said:
Mass tells spacetime how to curve: Spacetime tells mass how to move:
Click to expand...
There's just so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start. But I will. What Wheeler actually said was "Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move". See this so you know I'm not fooling you. You said mass instead of matter, which is wrong, and Wheeler said space instead of spacetime, which is also wrong. See how the next line of the article "Purists might quibble over whether Wheeler should have said 'space-time' rather than 'space'. Getting it right isn't being a purist, it's being a physicist. And to really get it right you should replace matter with energy. And then you should appreciate that the force of gravity is associated with the spacetime "tilt", whilst the tidal force is associated with spacetime curvature. So when the article says "as a two-line summary of general relativity this is hard to beat", you can take that with a pinch of salt. Particularly since it then gives a depiction of light curving:

fig_1_24lrg.jpg


The slope or tilt dictates how much light curves and how fast things fall down. Not the curvature. And the slope relates to the inhomogeneity of space, not the curvature of space or spacetime. This is why you can read Einstein talking about space being neither homogeneous not isotropic where a gravitational field is. Anyway, a lot of what you've been told about gravity stems from Wheeler. He was co-auther of MTW with Kip Thorne, and like him he believed in time travel. He used to go round saying a positron was an electron going back in time. See this. He was Feynman's supervisor. It's all the same electron, FFS. If I said that here I'd get ripped to shreds.
 
Farsight said:
Yes we do. Einstein explained why light curves, and we know about pair production and the wave nature of matter. Go read the OP. Note that nobody can fault it.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken on your most basic assumptions as usual.
Light doesn't actually curve...It follows geodesics in spacetime: FACT:
No, I'm not going back at this time to the opening post, as your usual mistaken rants that nobody can fault your reasonings, has just now been shown to be grossly wrong at best, and a down right lie at worst.


Farsight said:
There's just so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start. But I will. What Wheeler actually said was "Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move". See this so you know I'm not fooling you. You said mass instead of matter, which is wrong, and Wheeler said space instead of spacetime, which is also wrong. See how the next line of the article "Purists might quibble over whether Wheeler should have said 'space-time' rather than 'space'. Getting it right isn't being a purist, it's being a physicist. And to really get it right you should replace matter with energy. And then you should appreciate that the force of gravity is associated with the spacetime "tilt", whilst the tidal force is associated with spacetime curvature. So when the article says "as a two-line summary of general relativity this is hard to beat", you can take that with a pinch of salt. Particularly since it then gives a depiction of light curving:
Click to expand...

:)
As much as you chose to assault the internet and this forum with your silly pedantic and just plain wrong notions, the more people will laugh.
Wheeler was 100% correct when he said "matter/mass tells spacetime how to curve: spacetime tells matter/mass how to move:

Once again your slight of hand in ignoring the fact that space, time, spacetime are one and the same.
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. – Hermann Minkowski, 1908:



 
Farsight, you have not proven your OP to begin with! It is not on others to prove you wrong. It is your burden to prove that your delusions and illusions, accurately describe reality. So far you have failed in that (at least as far as convincing anyone else, you certainly seem to believe what you tell yourself).., and continueing to just reference Einstein as your source is not sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top