Gravity vs Mass

[Valjean]

Of course the canon ball "falls" to the Earth as it travels through the atmosphere. This motion is similar to a space probe entering the Earth atmosphere where it is slowing down because of the atmosphere itself.

And without the atmospheric friction slowing it....?

 

[Native]

Gravity curves spacetime: both space and time are affected. The degree of curvature is a function of all three coordinates of space and the time coordinate.

This is a bunch of relativistic nonsense from mind confused "scientists".

"Gravity" as a commonly understood concept, cannot be universally explained at all.
"Time" does not exist as an universal concept.
"Space" does not hold the concept of curvation as an embedded quality.

These issues are all highly speculative ghosts in cosmological minds.

 

[Polymath257]

y, but you need to update your conceptual universe.[/QUOTE]

This is a bunch of relativistic nonsense from mind confused "scientists".

"Gravity" as a commonly understood concept, cannot be universally explained at all.
"Time" does not exist as an universal concept.
"Space" does not hold the concept of curvation as an embedded quality.

These issues are all highly speculative ghosts in cosmological minds.

Well, general relativity seems to give a very good approximation for the actual motion of things in the real world.

Philosophical nonsense is irrelevant for the science.

 

[Native]

Yes, you can have a particle without mass. Sorry, but you need to update your conceptual universe.

And you need to revise and update your own conceptual universe with the properties of EM before you state anything about the concepts of light.

 

[Valjean]

This is a bunch of relativistic nonsense from mind confused "scientists".

"Gravity" as a commonly understood concept, cannot be universally explained at all.
"Time" does not exist as an universal concept.
"Space" does not hold the concept of curvation as an embedded quality.

These issues are all highly speculative ghosts in cosmological minds.

Apparently you skipped your physics classes.

 

[Native]

Well, general relativity seems to give a very good approximation for the actual motion of things in the real world

If so, how is it that scientists have failed to make a cosmological unification of all fundamental forces and their combined motional effects in the real cosmological realms?

 

[Thief]

What then if a "photon particle" slows down beyond the speed of light, do it then get mass?

ten years ago....maybe longer
an experiment dropped the speed of light to......15mph

but the radio report said nothing of the change in particle

 

[Native]

Apparently you skipped your physics classes.

I rather would say that I avoided the dogmatic indoctrination in Universities

 

[Thief]

Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics showing that you are wrong:

Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia

I heard otherwise
the prize was dealt for an economics algorithm

 

[Thief]

Good thing you didn't think you were right.

Didn't you claim to have won some kind of science award?

yep....sort of
a gov test rated me superior
when I was 13

but I have not let that go to my head
it's not important

so try not to worry over it

 

[Native]

ten year ago....maybe longer
an experiment dropped the speed of light to......15mph

but the radio report said nothing of the change in particle

Yes light can be "fiddled with" in many ways as described here - Danish physicist stores light, moves it around, and makes it reappear
https://sciencenordic.com/computers...moves-it-around-and-makes-it-reappear/1408618
A theoretical change between a light wave to a particle and vise versa is a pure metaphysical miracle In other way it is a cosmological mind ghost.

 

[Thief]

so......any consensus as to the nature of gravity?

present only when a substance is present?
and therefore it's affect is ONLY one substance to another?

having NO affect upon electromagnetic forces?
having NO affect to the weak and strong forces?

 

[Polymath257]

And you need to revise and update your own conceptual universe with the properties of EM before you state anything about the concepts of light.

i am very aware of the properties of E&M.

You never answered whether you accept that E&M is described accurately by Maxwell's equations and the effect on matter via the Lorentz force law. If you do, we can start getting into the numbers. If not, then there is a bigger problem here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I heard otherwise
the prize was dealt for an economics algorithm

You heard wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

so......any consensus as to the nature of gravity?

present only when a substance is present?
and therefore it's affect is ONLY one substance to another?

The term 'substance' is one that is way out of date. Gravity is a curvature of spacetime. That curvature, as explained, is produced by energy, pressure, and momentum in the region in question. ALL of these contribute to the curvature, so all of these affect gravity. Mass is included in the energy.

having NO affect upon electromagnetic forces?

Make a distinction between the forces and the fields. Since the fields have energy, they both affect the curvature (gravity) and are affected by it.

having NO affect to the weak and strong forces?

Same.

 

[Polymath257]

If so, how is it that scientists have failed to make a cosmological unification of all fundamental forces and their combined motional effects in the real cosmological realms?

Well, we have several proposals for such, but we don't currently have the technology to test those proposals.

Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are incredibly good approximations. We don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity. the phrase 'combined motional effects in the real cosmological realms' seems like gobbledegook to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If so, how is it that scientists have failed to make a cosmological unification of all fundamental forces and their combined motional effects in the real cosmological realms?

i love the non sequitur. It is a form of the "I don't understand so everyone else is wrong" argument.

 

[Native]

i am very aware of the properties of E&M.

No you are NOT. NOT on the large cosmological scale of formation and NOT on the stage of Plasma Cosmology - and seemingly not on even in the cause of what light really is.

This was/is the cause that I would wait to reply on your specific EM questions here:

You never answered whether you accept that E&M is described accurately by Maxwell's equations and the effect on matter via the Lorentz force law. If you do, we can start getting into the numbers. If not, then there is a bigger problem here.

You might have the correct EM equations and calculations right but just on the "Earthly scale", and I´m having huge troubles in lifting your Earth-bounded gravity mind a bit up in the (EM) cosmological and universal air, so to speak.

It´s very much like a Don Quijote fight against weather mills . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you are NOT. NOT on the large cosmological scale of formation and NOT on the stage of Plasma Cosmology - and seemingly not on even in the cause of what light really is.

This was/is the cause that I would wait to reply on your specific EM questions here:

You might have the correct EM equations and calculations right but just on the "Earthly scale", and I´m having huge troubles in lifting your Earth-bounded gravity mind a bit up in the (EM) cosmological and universal air, so to speak.

It´s very much like a Don Quijote fight against weather mills . . .

Sniff . . . sniff. Hmm, I do believe I detect the taint of the electric universe.

 

[Polymath257]

No you are NOT. NOT on the large cosmological scale of formation and NOT on the stage of Plasma Cosmology - and seemingly not on even in the cause of what light really is.

Plasma cosmology is bunk. it has been thoroughly disproved.

Are there plasmas in the universe? Yes, of course.

Do they negate Big bang cosmology? Not even close.

This was/is the cause that I would wait to reply on your specific EM questions here:

You might have the correct EM equations and calculations right but just on the "Earthly scale", and I´m having huge troubles in lifting your Earth-bounded gravity mind a bit up in the (EM) cosmological and universal air, so to speak.

So Maxwell's equations don't work on a cosmological scale?

It´s very much like a Don Quijote fight against weather mills . . .

So, the answer is?