 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » gravity is a fictious force...... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to the
mass...
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:25 am, "Tom" <j... at (no spam) junk.com> wrote:
[quote]Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to the
mass...
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
[/quote]
No. It's not really possible to describe this in a few paragraphs in
words. It can be described in words for the mildly interested amateur,
but only in quite a large number of words, more than what is sensible
to convey here. Sorry.
There are a large number of books, though, that don't have any math in
them on this subject though. Peter Bergmann's book is pretty good. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Igor... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:25 am, "Tom" <j... at (no spam) junk.com> wrote:
[quote]Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to the
mass...
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
[/quote]
In GR, gravity is thought of as a fictitious force in the sense that
all objects in a gravitational field travel on a geodesic in
spacetime. One of the things that characterizes a fictitious force is
that, locally, we can always find a frame in which the force on the
body vanishes. This is not true for real nontrivial forces, which are
vectors, and will remain nonzero in all coordinate systems and frames. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom wrote:
[quote]
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to
the mass...
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time
could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
[/quote]
Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
See: The General Relativity Tutorial
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom wrote:
[quote]
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
[/quote]
Already wrong.
[quote]2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to the
mass...
[/quote]
Which mass: inertial or gravitational, active or passive?
idiot
You read Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)?
BULLSHIT. You read and understood it? (BULLSHIT)^2.
The Weak Equivalence Principle through Einstein's elevator postulates
isotropic vacuum. There is no evidence that the vacuum does not
include a a chiral pseudoscalar background in the massed sector
(differentially interactive with opposite chirality mass distribution
configuration) consistent with teleparallel gravitation theory (1931;
Einstein, Cartan, Weitzenböck) embedded in Weitzenböck spacetime.
Single crystals of quartz in enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21/P3(2)21 or single crystals of gamma-glycine in enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)/P3(2) will give net non-zero output in a parity
Eotvos experiment, or not. Somebody should look.
[quote]Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
[/quote]
Or spacetime curvature. Either way, there is no force. All paths are
natural minimum action geodesics in 4-space. Feel free to formulate a
different and predictive theory consistent with prior observations.
[quote]At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. You drowned within your first paragraph. Can you
even do trigonometry, boy, accurately?
[quote]So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
[/quote]
"Gravitation and Inertia," Ciufolini & Wheeler, (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995)
"Gravitation," Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman: San
Francisco, 1973)
Annalen der Physik 49(7) 769-822 (1916)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So I will assume this means you are unable to explain it.
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF48413.74DB9214 at (no spam) hate.spam.net...
[quote]Tom wrote:
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
Already wrong.
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to
the
mass...
Which mass: inertial or gravitational, active or passive?
idiot
You read Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)?
BULLSHIT. You read and understood it? (BULLSHIT)^2.
The Weak Equivalence Principle through Einstein's elevator postulates
isotropic vacuum. There is no evidence that the vacuum does not
include a a chiral pseudoscalar background in the massed sector
(differentially interactive with opposite chirality mass distribution
configuration) consistent with teleparallel gravitation theory (1931;
Einstein, Cartan, Weitzenböck) embedded in Weitzenböck spacetime.
Single crystals of quartz in enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21/P3(2)21 or single crystals of gamma-glycine in enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)/P3(2) will give net non-zero output in a parity
Eotvos experiment, or not. Somebody should look.
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time
could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
Or spacetime curvature. Either way, there is no force. All paths are
natural minimum action geodesics in 4-space. Feel free to formulate a
different and predictive theory consistent with prior observations.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
No shit, Sherlock. You drowned within your first paragraph. Can you
even do trigonometry, boy, accurately?
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
"Gravitation and Inertia," Ciufolini & Wheeler, (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995)
"Gravitation," Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman: San
Francisco, 1973)
Annalen der Physik 49(7) 769-822 (1916)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Oh, I have no doubt he can: he is clearly brilliant.
I just don't think he is interested in conveying meaningful knowledge, say,
the way Feynman did.
And it is because of THAT, that he is unable (by his own lack of desire) to
explain it.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Ka1Jm.118395$5n1.81304 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]Tom wrote:
So I will assume this means you are unable to explain it.
Stooopid assumption on your part.
Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
See: The General Relativity Tutorial
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom wrote:
[quote]Oh, I have no doubt he can: he is clearly brilliant.
I just don't think he is interested in conveying meaningful knowledge,
say, the way Feynman did.
And it is because of THAT, that he is unable (by his own lack of desire)
to explain it.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Ka1Jm.118395$5n1.81304 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Tom wrote:
So I will assume this means you are unable to explain it.
Stooopid assumption on your part.
Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
See: The General Relativity Tutorial
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
[/quote]
Let me see if I can find a link to a good "legal copy" of a
Feynman Lecture on gravitation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom wrote:
[quote]
So I will assume this means you are unable to explain it.
[/quote]
Then you are by demonstration ignorant and ineducable.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
[quote]"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF48413.74DB9214 at (no spam) hate.spam.net...
Tom wrote:
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
Already wrong.
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to
the
mass...
Which mass: inertial or gravitational, active or passive?
idiot
You read Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)?
BULLSHIT. You read and understood it? (BULLSHIT)^2.
The Weak Equivalence Principle through Einstein's elevator postulates
isotropic vacuum. There is no evidence that the vacuum does not
include a a chiral pseudoscalar background in the massed sector
(differentially interactive with opposite chirality mass distribution
configuration) consistent with teleparallel gravitation theory (1931;
Einstein, Cartan, Weitzenböck) embedded in Weitzenböck spacetime.
Single crystals of quartz in enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21/P3(2)21 or single crystals of gamma-glycine in enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)/P3(2) will give net non-zero output in a parity
Eotvos experiment, or not. Somebody should look.
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time
could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
Or spacetime curvature. Either way, there is no force. All paths are
natural minimum action geodesics in 4-space. Feel free to formulate a
different and predictive theory consistent with prior observations.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
No shit, Sherlock. You drowned within your first paragraph. Can you
even do trigonometry, boy, accurately?
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
"Gravitation and Inertia," Ciufolini & Wheeler, (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995)
"Gravitation," Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman: San
Francisco, 1973)
Annalen der Physik 49(7) 769-822 (1916)[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Oh good lord, you actually responded.
Do you have any idea how OLD you sound?
I feel old just reading some of your other responses.
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
My god, what is this newsgroup for anyway?
A forum for some to come and clear themselves of their ignorance?
Or a soap box for Uncle Al to proclaim he is the biggest bully the school
yard?
Geez Al... you're just so old.
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF4A679.FC57036B at (no spam) hate.spam.net...
[quote]Tom wrote:
So I will assume this means you are unable to explain it.
Then you are by demonstration ignorant and ineducable.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF48413.74DB9214 at (no spam) hate.spam.net...
Tom wrote:
Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are
falling....
Already wrong.
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional
to
the
mass...
Which mass: inertial or gravitational, active or passive?
idiot
You read Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)?
BULLSHIT. You read and understood it? (BULLSHIT)^2.
The Weak Equivalence Principle through Einstein's elevator postulates
isotropic vacuum. There is no evidence that the vacuum does not
include a a chiral pseudoscalar background in the massed sector
(differentially interactive with opposite chirality mass distribution
configuration) consistent with teleparallel gravitation theory (1931;
Einstein, Cartan, Weitzenböck) embedded in Weitzenböck spacetime.
Single crystals of quartz in enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21/P3(2)21 or single crystals of gamma-glycine in enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)/P3(2) will give net non-zero output in a parity
Eotvos experiment, or not. Somebody should look.
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time
could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
Or spacetime curvature. Either way, there is no force. All paths are
natural minimum action geodesics in 4-space. Feel free to formulate a
different and predictive theory consistent with prior observations.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
No shit, Sherlock. You drowned within your first paragraph. Can you
even do trigonometry, boy, accurately?
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support
each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you
"Gravitation and Inertia," Ciufolini & Wheeler, (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995)
"Gravitation," Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman: San
Francisco, 1973)
Annalen der Physik 49(7) 769-822 (1916)[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom wrote:
[quote]
Oh good lord, you actually responded.
Do you have any idea how OLD you sound?
I feel old just reading some of your other responses.
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
My god, what is this newsgroup for anyway?
[/quote]
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/jessy.jpg
sci.physics is a place for children to shit their britches and boast
of the coverage, for psychotics to vent their spleens like jet
exhaust, none of it put down. Uncle Al is intolerant of stupidity and
those who are proud of it. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
[quote]A forum for some to come and clear themselves of their ignorance?
Or a soap box for Uncle Al to proclaim he is the biggest bully the school
yard?
Geez Al... you're just so old.
[snip][/quote]
Where is the data, Tom? Where are the references, the citations, the
books, the URLS? Where is your contribution? You've got your ass
impaled on an obelisk, pissing from on high,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
but you don't know anything.
Uncle Al spent the morning proofing two sets of galleys.
[6.6]chiralane has five chiral centers that cannot be formally named.
We're pretty sure they can't be named at all by any means. They have
no improper (rotation-reflection) axes and are inescapably chiral
centers. It arose from Petitjean's math. ACS, CAS, NIST, IUPAC, and
"Angew. Chemie" screamed blue murder - but wouldn't publish. It's
getting published in a refereed journal.
The parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry tests are also being formally
published in a refereed journal. Physics screamed blue murder - but
could find no technical errors. No prior observation has any bearing
on the experiments' outcomes. They work or not work depending on how
the universe configured 13.7 billion years ago. The scholarly text
demonstrates that current composition Eotvos experiments seeking a
detectable signal above noise have no basis in fact. Pookie, pookie.
"Póg mo thóin," Tom. Uncle Al believes in product not process. Fuck
the Officially Sad. 60,000 of the most magnificently trained, armed,
armored, and interfaced volunteer soldiers in the history of the world
- suckling a $trillion budget - cannot defeat a few thousand rag-clad
14th century religious nutcase tribesmen armed with AK-47s and a
smattering of RPGs.
They're your people, Tom - the Kevlar-clad losers - whose orders are
wholly disconnected from empirical reality. Process not product. The
2000-page Obamacare bill provides unlimited reimbursement for faith
healers,
<http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/11/06/the-priest-will-charge-you-now/#comments>
It's a giant pig trough and we are the feed. Here's the cure for all
the world's ills: insurance is legislated banned and unlawful. If
you cannot pay for it out of your own pocket you don't get it. If uou
enjoyed it all up front you deserve nothing out of Uncle Al's wallet
on the downward slope.
As for every goddamned illegal alien, slum bunny, White Trash genetic
cull, and 80 IQ fleshbag: die, and good riddance. "BUT IT ISN'T
FAIR!" Uncle Al has a 12 ga. shotgun loaded with "fair." Open
season, no limit, no tags required. We are way over the edge. "Sauve
qui peut."
Fuck the Officially Sad. Fuck them to Hell. And fuck you, Tom, for
advocating diversity rather than reality.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Bruere at NeoPax... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[quote]Tom wrote:
Oh good lord, you actually responded.
Do you have any idea how OLD you sound?
I feel old just reading some of your other responses.
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
"idiot"
My god, what is this newsgroup for anyway?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/jessy.jpg
sci.physics is a place for children to shit their britches and boast
of the coverage, for psychotics to vent their spleens like jet
exhaust, none of it put down. Uncle Al is intolerant of stupidity and
those who are proud of it. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
A forum for some to come and clear themselves of their ignorance?
Or a soap box for Uncle Al to proclaim he is the biggest bully the school
yard?
Geez Al... you're just so old.
[snip]
Where is the data, Tom? Where are the references, the citations, the
books, the URLS? Where is your contribution? You've got your ass
impaled on an obelisk, pissing from on high,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
but you don't know anything.
Uncle Al spent the morning proofing two sets of galleys.
[6.6]chiralane has five chiral centers that cannot be formally named.
We're pretty sure they can't be named at all by any means. They have
no improper (rotation-reflection) axes and are inescapably chiral
centers. It arose from Petitjean's math. ACS, CAS, NIST, IUPAC, and
"Angew. Chemie" screamed blue murder - but wouldn't publish. It's
getting published in a refereed journal.
The parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry tests are also being formally
published in a refereed journal. Physics screamed blue murder - but
could find no technical errors. No prior observation has any bearing
on the experiments' outcomes. They work or not work depending on how
the universe configured 13.7 billion years ago. The scholarly text
demonstrates that current composition Eotvos experiments seeking a
detectable signal above noise have no basis in fact. Pookie, pookie.
[/quote]
So has the expt been done yet?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| zzbunker at (no spam) netscape.net... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:25 am, "Tom" <j... at (no spam) junk.com> wrote:
[quote]Hello
I understand that Einstein (and others) considered gravity to be a
fictitious force.
They based this on some concepts I have read and understood:
1. imagine being in a closed elevator and not knowing you are falling....
2. understanding that for fictiious forces, the force is proportional to the
mass...
[/quote]
Well, since people like Einstein also believe History is Fiction,
That's why the people with non-zero G Brains even work on Post
Maxwellian Field Symmetry Crapola:
Digital Books, All-In-One Printers, mp3, mpeg, Blue Ray, HDTV,
Home Broadband,
Atomic Clock Watches, and Light Sticks,
Post Photo-Electric Special Effects, Pv Cell Energy, Self-
Assembling Robots, The 21st Century,
Post GM Elevator Music, Cyber Batteries,
Post Chrylser Transmissions, Rapid Prototyping, Compact Flourescent
Lighting,
Post Honeywell Spin: Reverse Compilers, Optical Compilers,
Post Uranium Rules UAVs, Drones, Phalanx, GPS, Digital Terrain
Mapping,
Post GE Wank-A-Thons, 4D Holographics, Desktop Publishing.
Post New York Times Qwerty Crankery, Multlplexed Fiber Optics,,
cd+rw, dvd-rom, On-Line Publishing,
Post Faraday Calibration: Laser-Guided Phasors
,
Post Turing Lamery, Post 1950 Cell Phones, non ACME Screwthreads,
Microwave Cooling,
Post AT&T Og Flotation Devices USB, Flat Screen Debuggers, Thermo-
Electric Cooling,
PGP++, Flash Memory, and Self-Replicating Machines anyway.
[quote]
Then, after years of work, Einstein showed that (and I am on thin ice
because
THIS is the very thing I am asking about), the curvature of space-time could
account for gravity being a fictitious force.
At this point, I am not adept in the math to follow his work.
So may I ask if someone could please explain in words (and a general
description,
at that), why it is natural that the following two concepts support each
other:
1. gravity is a fictitious force
2. space-time is curved
Thank you[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0 at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF4BD96.4DAFC3CD at (no spam) hate.spam.net...
[quote]http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
[/quote]
As an aside, while the above is pretty good (and I may use it)...
[quote]but you don't know anything.
[/quote]
I do think you're a rigid idiot on the verge of a nervous breakdown. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:06 am
|
|