[MD] constant

Fri Sep 3 07:28:34 PDT 2010

Hi

On 2010-09-03 16:14, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> can you read this , Magnus, i think you can find the problem, for the part
> of conflicting on light speed contraction.
> the speed is equal in all directions and all observers,in any system.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Sure, but what I meant was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

But that was only regarding c, not g. I hope you see that my model of 
gravity isn't that conflicted as you thought.

	Magnus

> 2010/9/3 Magnus Berg<McMagnus at home.se>
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>