Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

do not exists?

I axe ya, is that any ways to talks?

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

Anybody "see" gravity?

Anyway - for once Nick is correct. There is no experimental proof of
Gravitons. So?

However there is the difficult question of how objects tell each other their
mass so they can know who pulls who. Fields maybe. Nick, do you understand
what fields are? (and I don't mean the one where your pet sheep feed)

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

Anybody "see" gravity?

Anyway - for once Nick is correct. There is no experimental proof of
Gravitons. So?

However there is the difficult question of how objects tell each other
their
mass so they can know who pulls who. Fields maybe. Nick, do you understand
what fields are? (and I don't mean the one where your pet sheep feed)

T Wake:
Do you understand what fields are??

Ken Seto

T Wake wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...

Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --


Anybody "see" gravity?

Anyway - for once Nick is correct. There is no experimental proof of
Gravitons. So?

No, Nick is not correct. You are. There is no experimental proof for
the existence of gravitons.

However, that does not mean they do not exist.

People like Nick will never find them because they would not bother to
look. They would not bother to design an experiment to set an upper or
lower limit on its physical properties.

If people like Nick (Mitch) were those who ran or performed science, we
would not even have the wheel.


However there is the difficult question of how objects tell each other their
mass so they can know who pulls who. Fields maybe. Nick, do you understand
what fields are? (and I don't mean the one where your pet sheep feed)

"T Wake" schreef in bericht
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

Anybody "see" gravity?

Anyway - for once Nick is correct. There is no experimental proof of
Gravitons. So?

However there is the difficult question of how objects tell each other
their mass so they can know who pulls who. Fields maybe. Nick, do you
understand what fields are? (and I don't mean the one where your pet sheep
feed)

Isnt Gravity just the result of the curved spacetime by mass-energy? No
field needed. Just space and energy

Sir, you are correct. In fact, gravity is the only known force that we
cannot shield, whereas an "anti-gravity" effect could be created by
"blocking gravitational interactions" between objects. Therefore, it is
appropriate to state that gravity travels through all physical objects, as
opposed to being exchanged between objects. Ironically, although time is
not recognized as a force in science, it too affects all matter in a similar
manner, and cannot be shielded either. To date, no force carrier for gravity
has been found, supporting that it is not exchanged between objects. Since
gravity travels through physical objects, this must have a "cumulative net
effect" upon matter, which can be quantified and measured in some form. A
good example of this quantification is placing a wrinkled leaf inside the
pages of a book. The more "time" the leaf is inside the book; the more
"pressed" it becomes. Yet the force of gravity acting upon the leaf inside
the book never changes, it's only the "cumulative net effect" of gravity,
which pressed the leaf flat. This verifies that gravity indeed has a
"cumulative net effect" while passing through objects. Gravity defies the
conservation of energy, as it indefinitely converts potential energy to
kinetic energy to maintain constant force between physical objects,
perpetually. Other than the obvious fact that mass is energy, however, the
energy is not exchanged while gravity maintains a constant force between
objects

More can be found at www.threexd.com

Mark Oliver


"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anybody see that?

Gravity is not a particle. Gravitons do not exists; only
a curved space-time continuum exists.

Mitch
-- Light Falls in Gravity's Continuum --

Anybody "see" gravity?

Anyway - for once Nick is correct. There is no experimental proof of
Gravitons. So?

However there is the difficult question of how objects tell each other
their mass so they can know who pulls who. Fields maybe. Nick, do you
understand what fields are? (and I don't mean the one where your pet sheep
feed)

I imagine to a creationist like nick, he thinks that gravitons are the blood
of god coursing through his holy body, the universe. yada yada..

"Mark Oliver" wrote in message
news
To date, no force carrier for gravity has been found, supporting that it
is not exchanged between objects. Since gravity travels through physical
objects, this must have a "cumulative net effect" upon matter, which can
be quantified and measured in some form.

Two small nitpicks.

If no force carrier has been found yet, how does that support or not support
how it is exchanged or not exchanged between objects?

Also, given the above nitpick, how can we say that gravity travels "through"
objects as opposed to say, being "radiated" from one object to another?

"Mark Oliver" wrote in
news
A
good example of this quantification is placing a wrinkled leaf inside
the pages of a book. The more "time" the leaf is inside the book; the
more "pressed" it becomes. Yet the force of gravity acting upon the
leaf inside the book never changes, it's only the "cumulative net
effect" of gravity, which pressed the leaf flat. This verifies that
gravity indeed has a "cumulative net effect" while passing through
objects.

Invalid example. The same effect can be observed with the book oriented
perpendicular to the direction of gravity.

If the book is placed within a device that squeezes the pages together more
strongly, the effect will be faster.

If the book is in a spring vice and is in orbit around the earth, the
effect will be identical.

If the force pressing the pages together is reduced, the effect will be
reduced irrespective of the presence or absence of gravity.

In otherword, the effect has NOTHING to do with gravity, only with paper
absorbing moisture from the leaf and the leaf being under pressure.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap