I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove anything about
SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of physics, is a egotistical nut.

It should not be a big surpise if everything written before 1915 was not
totally and completely correct, but those who claim superior knowledge and
math skills good enough to "prove" SR or GR wrong, are only making fools
of themselves.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:48:35 -0500, Joe Fischer wrote:

I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

I also believe the problem that people who do not work with GR
or people who do not fully understand GR, is not that a mechanism
for gravity is not either known or specified, but that there exists _NO_
known way to transmit energy over great distances.
And since the popular concept of action for gravity in both
Newtonian Gravitation and General Relativity depends on attraction,
no know way to transmit the energy required to produce attraction
at great distances is even possible.

I also believe that it will not be possible to transmit energy
of the magnitude needed for gravity over great distances.

So those who want to understand how gravity _CAN_ work,
should select a mechanism that can enable the effects called
gravity, without the concept of "attraction".

It does not matter what level of education or how each
person is involved in gravity theory or experimental physics
or even applied physics, the mechanism selected does not
have to be true, it does not have to be how nature produces
the effects called gravity, all that is needed is that it work in
some cases and be somewhat internally consistent.

Most work involving gravity is done by government
agencies, educational institutions, or under contract or
grants by government or foundations.
So there is a need to have a mechanism that the
general taxpayer and the interested person can understand,
even if it is not the last word in gravitation and physics.

Saying it just works, is not enough.

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove
anything about
SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of physics, is
a egotistical nut.

I believe you are a ****ing raving lunatic with no math skills whatsoever,
you stooopid ****.
Androcles.

On Sat, Joe Fischer wrote:

I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

I also believe that it is not useful to say gravity is the weakest "force".

What would any of the intermoleular or even intraatomic forces
be at the distance of one astronomical unit?

It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various processes.

The measurement of mass on a spring scale is a measurement of
force, but relativity should not favor one interpretation or the other, models
which do not consider gravity to be an attractive force must also be given
the benefit of the doubt, and in those models, the "force" may not be
"pushing down" on the scale.

In this regard, discussions of General Relativity should use a common
interpretation, is the object being weighed pushing down, or is the scale
pushing up.

Joe Fischer

he is cool enuff, his expanding matter theory explain
best the gravity and other stuff

tha morons tok many times the gravity equivalent to
propper acceleration, then made it "postulates"


ahaha my dick, thay gave a fact the name of postulate,
owhat a gaays

he is cool enuff, his expanding matter theory explain
best the gravity and other stuff

tha morons tok many times the gravity equivalent to
propper acceleration, then made them "postulates"


ahaha my dick, thay gave a fact the name of postulate,
owhat a gaays

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Joe Fischer wrote:

I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

I also believe that it is not useful to say gravity is the weakest "force".

this what they say,

but actually nobody knows what keeps tha matter stickking toghether,
im sure you have a propper explanation

as you elagantely say, there are no forces, forces are artifacts,
tha only driving into an existence is tha expandings, no need for
any forces


What would any of the intermoleular or even intraatomic forces
be at the distance of one astronomical unit?

who cares, they will meet each other sooner or later


It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various processes.

exactly what i just said


The measurement of mass on a spring scale is a measurement of
force, but relativity should not favor one interpretation or the other, models
which do not consider gravity to be an attractive force must also be given
the benefit of the doubt, and in those models, the "force" may not be
"pushing down" on the scale.

In this regard, discussions of General Relativity should use a common
interpretation, is the object being weighed pushing down, or is the scale
pushing up.

Joe Fischer

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
I do believe that General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature,

Beleive what you like. It has never been exprimentally falsified so is a
vlaid theory.


and I also believe that anybody that thinks they can prove
anything about
SR or GR wrong with their math skills or superior knowledge of physics, is
a egotistical nut.


Since only kooks claim they can prove anything about SR or GR wrong - well
the inference is obvious.


It should not be a big surpise if everything written before 1915
was not
totally and completely correct,


Since much of that has been disproved by experiment you are obviously and
trivially wrong.

Bill

but those who claim superior knowledge and
math skills good enough to "prove" SR or GR wrong, are only making fools
of themselves.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
I also believe that it is not useful to say gravity is the weakest "force".

Hmmm. That basically comes from writing down the Lagrangians for all
known forces and examining their coupling constants. The one for Gravity
is smaller than the others by an enormous factor. For instance, between
two electrons at a given distance the ratio of gravitational force to
electrostatic force is about 10^-42 -- that is INCREDIBLY TINY.

Need I point out that this is in the Newtonian gravitation
approximation to GR, so "gravitational force" does indeed
make sense?


What would any of the intermoleular or even intraatomic forces
be at the distance of one astronomical unit?

Who cares? If you want to compare the strengths of forces, you should
compare them at the same distance. And you should use normal charges
appropriate for the forces involved.

It seems you are so accustomed to the electrical neutrality of ordinary
objects that you just don't fathom how strong EM forces really are --
they are ENORMOUS compared to gravity. Why do you think scrap iron
weighing many tons is easily lifted by an electromagnet (that is MUCH
smaller than either the earth or the iron)? And electrostatic forces
between charged objects can be MUCH larger than that....


It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various processes.

Yes. But the ratio of coupling constants in the Lagrangian is a useful
comparison.


Tom Roberts

Dr. Roberts wrote too confidently:
Hmmm. That basically comes from writing down the Lagrangians for all known
forces and examining their coupling constants.

And do these Lagrangians follow the contraints put forth by the Lagrangian
Methods? Can you [plural] always identify an action to be minimzed and the
parameter to be minimized?

Dr. Roberts wrote:
The one for Gravity is smaller than the others by an enormous factor.
For instance, between two electrons at a given distance the ratio of
gravitational force to electrostatic force is about 10^-42 -- that is
INCREDIBLY TINY.

What are the Lagrangians you [plural] have identified for electrosatic and
magnetic forces?

Dr. Roberts wrote:
Need I point out that this is in the Newtonian gravitation
approximation to GR, so "gravitational force" does indeed
make sense?

So, Newton established a thoery on how two objects with mass attracts each
other. He humbly pointed that the exact mechanism on how this attractive
force comes about still eludes mankind. Grossmann/Einstein/Hilbert came up
with a theory explaining how two objects would behave with observed
attractive force through the curvature of spacetime suround massive objects.
Just because Einstein did not humbly like Newton did pointed out exactly why
mass and energy would manifest a curvature in spacetime, there is no closer
closure to the understanding on how two objects with mass are going to
attract each other. GR althoough is more accurate in describing the
mechanism of gravitation is actually in the same generation of Newtonian
physics. However, meticulously examining the 2nd order effect of the
curvature parameter [sqrt(1 - 2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 /r)], one does not
aggree with traditional claim of GR able to predict Mercury's orbital
anomaly. This can be explained through grundgy algebra with 2nd year
calculus learning.

Mr. Fischer wrote erroneously:
It even seems that use of the word "force" to describe all
aspects
of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the various processes.

Even through the curvature of spacetime, one can also write an equation
describing the observed energy or the observed mass of an object trapped in
this curvature of spacetime. So, with this equation, one should have no
problem to write down the attractive force involved. Therefore, the
curvature in spacetime if it actually exists (which I have great doubt) does
indeed allow an observed force describig all the interactions. Describing
gravity as a force can be very correct as long as it is carried out to the
precision of desire.

Dr. Roberts meaninglessly pointed out:
Yes. But the ratio of coupling constants in the Lagrangian is a useful
comparison.

Please show us your Lagrangian(s) involved. What coupling constants are you
referring to?