Jeff Krimmel

B. GR states that matter causes spacetime to curve
GR "states" no such thing. You're describing a heuristic tool used to
explain the mathematics of general relativity to those not familiar with
the theory.

Ok. Then I'm lost. Doesn't General Relativity state that gravity is
not a force? And isn't that claim based on the statement that gravity
is "matter telling spacetime how to curve and spacetime telling matter
how to move"?

If GR does not state the words in quotes, how can it come to the
conlcusion that gravity is not a force?

Or has science "re-forcified" gravity and I'm working off an old
definition?

Either way, you can't have both.

Mike Helland

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:39:10 -0700, Mike Helland wrote:

Jeff Krimmel

B. GR states that matter causes spacetime to curve
GR "states" no such thing. You're describing a heuristic tool used to
explain the mathematics of general relativity to those not familiar with
the theory.

Ok. Then I'm lost. Doesn't General Relativity state that gravity is
not a force? And isn't that claim based on the statement that gravity
is "matter telling spacetime how to curve and spacetime telling matter
how to move"?

If GR does not state the words in quotes, how can it come to the
conlcusion that gravity is not a force?

Or has science "re-forcified" gravity and I'm working off an old
definition?

Either way, you can't have both.

You have some _fundamental_ misunderstandings about the nature of general
relativity. It seems like the most difficult battle you face is in
separating general relativity the theory from the descriptions of the
theory you may be hearing/reading. General relativity the theory is purely
the set of mathematical relations that describe gravitation, in the form
that Einstein put them. That's as far as general relativity goes. It
doesn't "state that gravity is" anything, and it doesn't "come to" any
conclusions.

Scientists that learn and use the theory state many things, and they come
to many conclusions. The theory itself is strictly the set of mathematical
relations involved, and those relations make predictions that have been
most wonderfully verified in a variety of areas.

So, it matters not to general relativity how confused you may or may not
be about what words you're using to describe gravitation (force, curvature,
etc.). General relativity the theory will keep marching on beyond any
misconceptions/confusions you or anyone else may have in an attempt to
anthropomorphize the theory.

Jeff

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ken S. Tucker

You might have answered the question I'm about to ask with the "mass
sucking" comment, but I was flying on a plane yesterday and couldn't
help noticing how beatuiful the clouds were.
Then I could help noticing that they were moving, but not along a
curved geodesic towards earth. They were just floating in the sky
moving around at the same altitude. Why do the clouds not come to the
ground if they are supposed to be moving along curved geodesics?
This is getting silly, but fog happens.

If you cannot answer the question, would you mind pointing me to some
resource that does?

Two particles don't interact or observe each other through light, and
this is tautologously true because when the particles interact they
are creating light (or electromagenetism) so it would be impossible
from them to observe mechanically identically to the way we observe.

Sorry, I thunked hard, but my IQ is insufficient to grasp
the meaning.

Would you agree that when Newton observed an apple falling, his human
brain modeled that change of state using light? If that is the case,
the concept of time in our minds is created by light (or
electromagnetism).

If that is the case, the forces that are interacting to create our
time cannot actually be interacting along our time? How can they exist
in the medium that they create?

Also, if these particles are interacting with each other to create our
forces, they must observe each other to interact. If when they
interact, they create the means in which we observe, how would it be
possible for them to observe each other using the forces that their
observations create?

Because that would be impossible, they MUST be observing in a
fundamentally different way. Because they observe differently they
must have different laws of physics.

For example, one of those laws is the speed limit. If light is the
natural speed limit, how can light be the speed limit to an observer
that exists where light does not exist? There must obviouslly be a
distinction between natures, with distinctly different laws of nature.

Does that make sense?

There has been a great effort in the 20th century to establish
the *Principle of General Covariance*, where any frame of
reference is entitled equally to any other to be subject to said
laws, and observe their consistent application.
Are intending to challenge General Covariance?

If I am not mistaken, it applies only to inertial frames of reference.
That is not exactly what I am discussing. I am discussing the unseen
mechanics of light.

You and I see light and think thats all there is to it. But underneath
light there is something making it work. Objects that may be thousands
of times smaller than a photon are working to construct the photon and
set it in action.

The problem is since everything we see is based on light, how can we
see something smaller than light? We can't, and so we never suspect
that they exist. But they have to exist. Light simply can't be light.
There is something underneath the surface of light that makes it work
the way it does.

What I am saying is that since these unobservable objects are creating
our forces of Nature, and thus, our observation of Nature, they cannot
actually exist in our Nature. They must exist in another one, where
the laws of Nature are different than the laws of our Nature.

Mike Helland

Jeff Krimmel

You have some _fundamental_ misunderstandings about the nature of general
relativity.

Then please clear this up for me (oh, and if you could cite your
source it would be helpful because all the resources I've found say
"yes" to the following):

Does science use General Relativity to state that Gravity is not a
force?

Is that argument based on the understanding that gravity is:

Matter telling spacetime how to curve and spacetime telling matter how
to move

?

Mike Helland

Bilge,

No, I said the question was meaningless. I ask you again the
following question (In your own format). This time _ANSWER_IT_.

Ok.

A. The pythagorean theorem says that a right triangle causes the sqaures
of the length of the two sides to equal the square of the hypotenuse.

B. Because there is a theory that states that cause, I personally
need that statement to be accurate.

Your statement is not on par with my statement. I'll show you why.

You just said "no theory makes the statement of the cause" and then
you said "I need that statement of cause to be accurate".

That is considerable different than my logic. I'll do it symbolically
if it helps:

A = The claim of cause
B = the accuracy of A

I'm saying that since A exists, B must be verifiable.

You're response to this is the following logic:

Bilge says that A doesn't exist, B must be verifiable.

We are talking about different things. The difference in the logic is
subtle, but as we both know, differences in logic are substantial in
their validity.

I don't agree with you. You do not understand why the question you're
asking is meaningless.

Your example of pythagarous shows that you simply do not understand my
reasoning. Sorry. Thats black and white.

Do you think
people spend years studying this stuff because they didn't realize
that someone on usenet could condense it all into a single post
for them?

Are you saying that it would be impossible to contribute to science in
its current state? Or are you saying that if someone reads 6 books on
a subject (whether relativity or astrology) then claims to
"understand" that it somehow invalidate my criticism of the topic?

Either way, that is the logic of a believer, not a scientist.

Mike Helland

Mike Helland:
Jeff Krimmel

B. GR states that matter causes spacetime to curve
GR "states" no such thing. You're describing a heuristic tool used to
explain the mathematics of general relativity to those not familiar with
the theory.

Ok. Then I'm lost.

You're lost because you choose to be. All you are doing is fishing for
more items to wrap up in a convoluted argument that substitutes verbose
bullahit for logic and that no one is interested in. Take it to a newsgroup
that doesn't have "sci" as part of the hierarchy.

[...]
Or has science "re-forcified" gravity and I'm working off an old
definition?

You're working off the fishing edition. Go fish elsewhere.

Either way, you can't have both.

Why not? You do by posting non-science on a science newsgroup.

(Mike Helland) wrote in message om...

Hi Mike, alot of your posts are philosophical, but I'll try
keeping up.
[snip]
Why do the clouds not come to the
ground if they are supposed to be moving along curved geodesics?

This is getting silly, but fog happens.

If you cannot answer the question, would you mind pointing me to some
resource that does?

Yes, fog is a fallin cloud, that's a question about weather.

Two particles don't interact or observe each other through light, and
this is tautologously true because when the particles interact they
are creating light (or electromagenetism) so it would be impossible
from them to observe mechanically identically to the way we observe.

Sorry, I thunked hard, but my IQ is insufficient to grasp
the meaning.

Would you agree that when Newton observed an apple falling, his human
brain modeled that change of state using light?

Yes.

If that is the case,
the concept of time in our minds is created by light (or
electromagnetism).

Agreed, all observation uses light.

If that is the case, the forces that are interacting to create our
time cannot actually be interacting along our time?

Theses *forces* and more accurately the energy produced
by these forces interacting, define our time scales. Check
out and understand the evolution of clocks, from Galileo's
pendulum clock to modern atomic and laser clocks.

How can they exist in the medium that they create?

This is an excellent question. It involves the basis of GR and
Quantum theory. It seems a clock in producing a tick-tock
varies it's own rate slightly. This is known as non-linearity.
Consider a water clock, a drip reduces the pressure to
make the next drip. So you need a means of making that
drip return to the water column.

Also, if these particles are interacting with each other to create our
forces, they must observe each other to interact.

Agreed

If when they
interact, they create the means in which we observe, how would it be
possible for them to observe each other using the forces that their
observations create?

This is becoming technical. When a proton and electron (think
a Hydrogen atom) interact to change their relative orbital energies,
one releases a postive electromagnetic field energy, and the other
a negative EM field to produce a sum we can detect as a photon
of light.

Because that would be impossible, they MUST be observing in a
fundamentally different way.

No, because we can observe the results of their interaction.
Strike a match and observe light and heat.

Because they observe differently they
must have different laws of physics.

This is a philosophical error. We *define* laws of physics
as valid for everything, all the time, everywhere, for
everything. Then we work from that definition.

For example, one of those laws is the speed limit. If light is the
natural speed limit, how can light be the speed limit to an observer
that exists where light does not exist?

Exactly, where light does not exist, or cannot exist, our
definition of spacetime fails. One fellow on this NG, (I'm
sorry I can't provide a specific reference off hand), has
determined that at very small lengths, (Plancks lengths),
our macroscopic notions of spacetime do not apply,
and this argument seems reasonable.

There must obviouslly be a
distinction between natures, with distinctly different laws of nature.
Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but I would hesitate to schizophenicate the
universe into different natures. For example, at the end of
the 19th century, the radiation spectrum (radio waves to light
waves) was not unified. In the 20th century, a means was found
to unify particles with wave like radiation.

There has been a great effort in the 20th century to establish
the *Principle of General Covariance*, where any frame of
reference is entitled equally to any other to be subject to said
laws, and observe their consistent application.
Are intending to challenge General Covariance?

If I am not mistaken, it applies only to inertial frames of reference.

Nope, GC applies to everything real.

That is not exactly what I am discussing. I am discussing the unseen
mechanics of light.
You and I see light and think thats all there is to it. But underneath
light there is something making it work. Objects that may be thousands
of times smaller than a photon are working to construct the photon and
set it in action.

Your theory is a classical one, and has been largely discounted
by Plancks Quantum Hypothesis. Seems energy moves in clumps.

The problem is since everything we see is based on light, how can we
see something smaller than light?

Aside from increasing the frequency and resolution, such as
an electrom microscope does, the balance of results are
extrapolated by indirect observation. An atomic explosion
results from forces that are invisible by light (such as nuclear
forces).

We can't, and so we never suspect
that they exist. But they have to exist. Light simply can't be light.

This is becoming hysterical.

There is something underneath the surface of light that makes it work
the way it does.

Yes.

What I am saying is that since these unobservable objects are creating
our forces of Nature, and thus, our observation of Nature, they cannot
actually exist in our Nature. They must exist in another one, where
the laws of Nature are different than the laws of our Nature.

Schizophenication of nature, Zues had a job, Athena....etc,
I might be dating myself but the unfying god Ra invented by
Akenten and his girl friend worked for 3000 years. So this
first attempt at unification that has evolved to be General
Covariance, seems most reasonable, unless you choose
the laws of physics to relative.

Mike Helland

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker

Because that would be impossible, they MUST be observing in a
fundamentally different way.

No, because we can observe the results of their interaction.
Strike a match and observe light and heat.

I don't understand your response. I am saying:

We observe things through light
Particles observe each other and then interact to create light
Therefore, particles cannot observe through light
Therefore, particle observe differently than we do

How then, does your response (that we observe the results of their
observation/interaction as light) contradict what I say? Why do you
say "no"?

Exactly, where light does not exist, or cannot exist, our
definition of spacetime fails. One fellow on this NG, (I'm
sorry I can't provide a specific reference off hand), has
determined that at very small lengths, (Plancks lengths),
our macroscopic notions of spacetime do not apply,
and this argument seems reasonable.

And this argument seems very similar to mine. I however go one step
further to assert that the reason for the failure is because Time is
observed differently at these levels, and therefore is a distinctly
different time.

That is not to say that the time's are completely unrelated. One is
built on the other. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that ours
is a definite subset of the other.

It makes sense, but I would hesitate to schizophenicate the
universe into different natures. For example, at the end of
the 19th century, the radiation spectrum (radio waves to light
waves) was not unified. In the 20th century, a means was found
to unify particles with wave like radiation.

Just because they are unified, does not mean the differences are
completely erased. The Strong and Weak forces might be mechanically
the exact same particle interaction, but they can still be thought of
as different forces because they have different observable effects.

This is of course a terminology issue above anything else.

If I am not mistaken, it applies only to inertial frames of reference.
Nope, GC applies to everything real.

If we define something as "real" being something that exists in our
spacetime, then what I am talking about is not "real" by that
definition and therefore we have no conflict.

However, there is another conflict. Science is making the assumption
that if it does not exist in our spacetime, it simply does not exist.
This is a hasty assumption, and indeed, the discovery of another
version of time shows that there are spacetimes beyond our own where
these things can exist.

Thanks, this is a productive discussion, from my observations anyways
:-)

Mike Helland

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:46:32 -0700, Mike Helland wrote:

Jeff Krimmel

Mike, I'll repeat again, but it appears that you may need to go grab a
dictionary or ask your mom what this means: This is a _heuristic tool_
that is used to help explain what the mathematics mean to someone who is
not familiar with them.

Ok, so by responding to my questions in this way, are you agreeing
that there is no scientific evidence that gravity is not a force?

Mike, I don't know how else to explain this to you, but there will never
be _any_ scientific evidence that gravity is anything but what it is.
There will never be a scientific theory that can speak in English and say,
"Mike, trust me, gravity is a force" or otherwise. The mathematics simply
do not convey such notions.

Different models of gravitation exist. Some introduce a force element to
make gravitational predictions; others introduce curved manifolds to make
gravitational predictions. Depending on which model you're using, the
answer is different.

Gravitation is what it is, regardless of the words we use to describe it.
The mathematics makes really great predictions (in the case of general
relativity), and that is the part that is ultimately satisfying.

Jeff

Jeff Krimmel

Mike, I don't know how else to explain this to you, but there will never
be _any_ scientific evidence that gravity is anything but what it is.

Then we are in agreement. Thanks.

Mike