[MD] constant

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Adrie


On 2010-09-03 15:16, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> You are badly conflicting the model of gravity, Magnus , its better that i
> inform you
>   gravity as in g-force, what you think is a constant, the acceleration, 9.81
> m/s, is not a constant , it is mass dependant
> interacting with other masses, interacting with the earthrotation, the
> tides,(masses),...etc , the constant is a variable because it is derived
> from massdependancy. because you are showing to be interested, i will
> provide a link to g-force on wiki.

I never said g (~9.81 m/s2 at sea level) was constant. Not sure what 
gave you that idea?

> if you read the artikel closely you will be able to see how badly you are
> violating the model.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force
> pay special attention to gravity on the moon, this deviates because of the
> lesser mass , Astronaut can make leaps 6 times bigger.
> the acceleration is about 1.6 instead of 9.81, and also depending on were
> you are standing on the surface.
> this is all proven.

My gravity model doesn't violate that either.

> there is no gravity within a spacelab, astronauts are flying around
> weightless, Magnus, there is only some interaction at close distance
> in total empty space , gravity is absent mainly, lack of partikel's you
> see,... so the model you and John made, and i was reading it , is
> totally invalid, sorry to say it.

You have probably misunderstood it then. You say there's no gravity 
within a spacelab, and I say there is gravity, only that it comes from 
all directions so it cancels out and becomes zero.

As you said in your last post, we can only see the *effects* of gravity, 
and the effect of gravity in a spacelab is zero. The only difference 
between your and my model is how we get to zero.


> the deviation you are making on lightspeed, and the role of the observer, as
> mentioned,is even more badly, but understandable
> and derived from the fact that it is incredible difficult to understand
> general relativity- and especially special relativity.
> The main problem is the hierargy you have to follow- first general to answer
> the question, than special, but than you step back into
> general again, strictly spoken.The hierargy does not allow it.But i agree
> that this issue is one of the most dangerous to interpret.
> My advice for this moment , avoid it , its incredible difficult to explain,
> in your explanation about relative speed of light/observer, you are trying
> to step away from the constant again, remember, nothing can go faster than
> light at max speed, nothing , not even pure energy.But as you are interested
> try to start with the link , read it carefully.

Did you mean my reply to Horse's post? About the local speed limit? I 
think you need to point at my mistake in that case so we can discuss it.

> Its better to be informed , before the misconception grows on you.Adrie
>
> Also try this , things that are already proven long ago, cannot be made
> undone nor disregarded.
> Einstein made assumptions , but as they are proven experimentally later on,
> they became laws of nature.
> It arrived at him in a dynamical way, in a matter of speaking,in the last
> part of his life he admitted that most of his work was derived from
> intuition solely, and confirmed after that.Same goes for Heisenberg.

I don't suggest the proofs are invalid or should be disregarded, but 
they might be tautologies within that system of assumptions.

	Magnus






>
>
>
> 2010/9/2 Magnus Berg<McMagnus at home.se>
>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On 2010-09-02 16:20, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>
>>> Gravity is everywhere around us and different on all locations.
>>> How? well, mass is involved , so it depends on the observers
>>> weight-distance
>>> to the earthcore( max mass) and distance to the
>>> earthrotationsaxle.spacetime
>>> is involved because gravity , like light , is bendible, compressible,
>>> etc...(all proven).
>>> Some minor players are involved , like lake's different mass than
>>> soil,mountains, sea, etc,
>>> The location.
>>> The local location, the direct vicinity of the gravity field around a
>>> human
>>> observer, gravity is different in your backyard if you compare it to your
>>> livingroom, (masses), gravity is different in an airoplane then on the
>>> ground, different distance to earthcore-airoplane-than airoplane -observer
>>> on the ground. gravity, time is different in a satellite than it is on the
>>> ground, space/timedilatation,(relativity of speeds, bending of time).
>>> So to show an example , mostly in a sattellite in a geo-stationair
>>> position
>>> time goes about 4 full minute's slower than it goes on earth
>>> they have to correct this every day for all sattelite's depending on the
>>> orbits/speeds, different bending.
>>>
>>
>> I'm actually not sure the best way to explain gravity's effect is that mass
>> curves space.
>>
>> Think of it this way, the effect of gravity reaches far out in space from a
>> massive object. The effect causes other objects to fall towards the massive
>> object. However, the strange thing is that the object always accelerates
>> towards the massive object at the same acceleration, regardless of *its*
>> mass. This means that the massive object must draw a larger object harder
>> towards itself, because it requires more force to accelerate a larger object
>> than a smaller.
>>
>> But this doesn't make any sense. How could the sun direct more gravitons
>> (or whatever it is) towards Jupiter than it sends towards Earth. No sense at
>> all.
>>
>> So, in light of this, Einstein's solution was that space itself was curved,
>> causing the differently sized objects Jupiter and Earth fall towards sun at
>> the same acceleration. He sort of fooled the system.
>>
>> However, even if such a solution has a certain appeal, apart from the fact
>> that it works very well, it kind of bites itself in the tail. It tries to
>> explain the gravity that pull planets towards the sun using the gravity that
>> makes a ball roll down a slope. But since we know that the two "kinds" of
>> gravities are really the same, the proof becomes circular.
>>
>> If we now back up to the original problem, we can see that another solution
>> is the one John and I mentioned the other day, but I'm pretty sure most of
>> you either didn't take notice, or just thought we were fooling around. The
>> other solution is that space itself is the origin of gravity, and it
>> *pushes* all mass away from it. The net effect will always be the same,
>> Earth will get pushed from all directions *but* from the sun, or rather, the
>> sun will cancel out just as much gravity as required to accelerate the Earth
>> towards the sun in exactly the same way the curved space explanation would
>> stipulate.
>>
>> All the proofs that proves that space gets curved are *probably* proven
>> within that system. The system where space *is* curved, so I'm not so sure
>> it's possible to prove much else given that first assumption.
>>
>>         Magnus
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>
>
>