Gravity: a repost

  • 216 Replies
  • 42410 Views
?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #90 on: October 23, 2007, 06:04:00 PM »
Sounds a bit like gravity, eh?
No, it's nothing like gravity.
O?
RLY!

Quote
Care to explain how they are attached to the UA?
You don't need to be attached to the DE (UA, sort of), just in contact with it.
How is it, but not, say, a bird in flight?
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #91 on: October 23, 2007, 08:06:35 PM »
Because the bird is not in contact with it...


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2007, 08:15:27 PM »
Because the bird is not in contact with it...
Yet two bodies 3000 miles up somehow are......................
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2007, 08:18:52 PM »
Because the bird is not in contact with it...
Yet two bodies 3000 miles up somehow are......................

That being flat earth logic, in a nutshell.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #94 on: October 23, 2007, 09:18:26 PM »
Because the bird is not in contact with it...
Yet two bodies 3000 miles up somehow are......................
Birds don't normally fly at 3000 miles AGL.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #95 on: October 24, 2007, 02:08:39 AM »
Ah, but riding around each other's depressions in space-time would explain a circular orbit, however they are not circular.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #96 on: October 24, 2007, 03:48:33 AM »
Because the bird is not in contact with it...
Yet two bodies 3000 miles up somehow are......................
Birds don't normally fly at 3000 miles AGL.
Explain how it's in contact.

Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #97 on: October 24, 2007, 03:54:28 AM »
Sounds a bit like gravity, eh?

No, it doesn't.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #98 on: October 24, 2007, 05:40:27 AM »
1. Acceleration = Gravitation and obviously Gravitation = Acceleration
2. Moon and Sun orbit each other because of gravitation.
3. Climbing a mountain elevates you enough to feel gravitation of sun and moon and stars. (explains weight changes)
4. <insert name here> jumps off a building thus accelerating into the ground. (gravitation)
5. Gravitation is a consequence of nature. (No better explained than gravity btw)
6. ...Thus observable effects that are attributed to gravity (allegedly fictitious) are explained the same as gravitation .

Thats a collection of FE conclusions found throughout the site. I fail to see how RE has no explanation for what we call gravity if gravitation works. Lets say we name gravity a force incorrectly after observing gravitation but it behaves the same way. So what?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #99 on: October 24, 2007, 05:55:37 AM »
No, the earth is round.

Where did I say otherwise? More so, that statement you quoted was based on the RE, idiot.


There is no need for insults.
FE Pwnage Archive

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8101.0


The Engineer is still a douchebag







.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #100 on: October 24, 2007, 06:13:28 AM »
I fail to see how RE has no explanation for what we call gravity if gravitation works.

Um, is that a joke?

Lets say we name gravity a force incorrectly after observing gravitation but it behaves the same way. So what?

GR proved that they didn't behave the same way. So one exists, and one doesn't.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 06:24:23 AM by divito the fascist »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #101 on: October 24, 2007, 06:36:37 AM »
Not sure how you chalked these up to be FE conclusions. They are basically individual ideas from members. In no way are they conclusions of anything except picking random member's ideas and assigning them such a title.

5. Gravitation is a consequence of nature. (No better explained than gravity btw)

Gravitation is a result, not a cause. And it's explained much better.

6. ...Thus observable effects that are attributed to gravity (allegedly fictitious) are explained the same as gravitation .

We've already made an easily understood explanation of why gravity is fictitious. And it's not explained the same; gravity is an alleged force that causes gravitation. However, gravitation isn't caused by a force.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #102 on: October 24, 2007, 07:50:22 AM »
Not sure how you chalked these up to be FE conclusions. They are basically individual ideas from members. In no way are they conclusions of anything except picking random member's ideas and assigning them such a title.

5. Gravitation is a consequence of nature. (No better explained than gravity btw)

Gravitation is a result, not a cause. And it's explained much better.

Tell that to TheEngineer. You two seem like friends.
<insert FE BS here>

Quote
6. ...Thus observable effects that are attributed to gravity (allegedly fictitious) are explained the same as gravitation .

We've already made an easily understood explanation of why gravity is fictitious. And it's not explained the same; gravity is an alleged force that causes gravitation. However, gravitation isn't caused by a force.

Not explained but observed. Not a cause but an effect. Acceleration = Gravitation right?
In either case, you have yet to absolutely prove anything about gravity.

I fail to see how RE has no explanation for what we call gravity if gravitation works.

Um, is that a joke?

Lets say we name gravity a force incorrectly after observing gravitation but it behaves the same way. So what?

GR proved that they didn't behave the same way. So one exists, and one doesn't.

What part of General Relativity says gravity isn't real?!  :-\ As far as General Relativity goes, "Einstein's key insight was that there is no fundamental difference between the constant pull of gravity we know from everyday experience and the fictitious forces felt by an accelerating observer (in the language of physics: an observer in a non-inertial reference frame). So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration which could just as easily be imitated by placing an observer within a rocket accelerating at the same rate as gravity (9.81 m/s²)."

Einstein, Albert (1907). "Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogene Folgerungen". Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitaet und Elektronik 4.

The observable effects were compared to fictional forces, not cited as one. Every other source I have seen reinforces the concept that Einstein didn't see gravity as fictitious nor gravitation. RE plays into both. It seems that you and other FE'ers pick and choose which parts of laws of physics to support your claims and toss away the rest.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #103 on: October 24, 2007, 08:24:46 AM »
What part of General Relativity says gravity isn't real?!

As TheEngineer said earlier in this thread, "Gravity is a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial.   Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary."

Since our FoR is non-inertial, there is no need for gravity. It, as a force, doesn't exist.

Quote
"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

Quote
"Is Gravity A Fictitious Force?

...

The strange and in some ways disturbing answer to this supposition is that the phenomenon of gravity (the fact that things fall, and have weight) is real, but the force of gravity, as described by Newton, is not a real force, but a fictitious force."

- http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

Quote
"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force)." - http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=ABE57453-E7F2-99DF-32538FF7C7B37F20

Quote
"You have it essentially right

mdivito@cevo.com wrote:
> user_email -- mdivito@cevo.com
> question -- I was just looking for some clarification of a few things in regards to gravitation.
>
> GR basically showcases that gravity as a force doesn't exist, correct?
>
> Now, as I understand it, gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity?
>
>
>
>   

--
******************************************
F. Todd Baker
225 Henderson Ave.
Athens, GA 30602

Email: tbaker@physast.uga.edu
Phone: 706-546-xxxx
Cell: 706-714-xxxx
Web: http://www.ftoddbaker.com/
******************************************"

Quote
"This is analogous to what mass does to the structure of space-time. It causes a depression to form so that if an object  rolls toward it, it falls into the pit and is captured. (This, by the way, is how Einstein envisioned how gravity works. Mass distorts the space-time causing particles to roll toward the mass. Note that the objects follow the shape of the space-time and in this sense are following an unforced motion! That is, there is no gravitational force, objects are simply following their natural motions.)" - http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/lecture-2/gw.html

Quote from: Wiki on GR
One of the defining features of general relativity is the idea that gravitational 'force' is replaced by geometry. In general relativity, phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories) are taken in general relativity to represent inertial motion in a curved spacetime. So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing.

Quote from: Wiki on Non Inertial Frames of Reference
An apparent exception would seem to be the force of gravity, which is also proportional to the mass upon which it acts. Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force. In his theory, the free-falling reference frame is equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). By contrast, Einstein noted that observers standing on the Earth are experiencing an unrecognized acceleration from the normal force pushing up on their feet and, thus, are in a non-inertial (accelerated) reference frame. Further details may be found under general relativity.

Every other source I have seen reinforces the concept that Einstein didn't see gravity as fictitious nor gravitation.

Gravitation is not fictitious.

It seems that you and other FE'ers pick and choose which parts of laws of physics to support your claims and toss away the rest.

Other FEers? Supporting what claims? Picked what?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #104 on: October 24, 2007, 09:59:03 AM »
As TheEngineer said earlier in this thread, "Gravity is a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial.   Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary."
Yes, but we all know perfectly well that GR gave us a paradigm shift in our theory of Gravity/Gravitational. Any use of this to attack posting about 'gravity' are anal beyond measure, and just one of his stupid attempts to sideline people by engaging in utterly crass disputation.

Go find a physicist who'll give a shit about the difference between the two. Have fun looking.

(This one doesn't)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #105 on: October 24, 2007, 11:08:51 AM »
Force.

Not a force.


Seems like quite a big difference.  But I would expect actual physicists to know this.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #106 on: October 24, 2007, 01:26:23 PM »
Force.

Not a force.


Seems like quite a big difference.  But I would expect actual physicists to know this.

The point is WHO CARES?

The resulting effect is what doesn't make sense, here. The question is, how does any of this explain the ridiculously complicated paths of the sun and moon? That is to say, how does being "in each other's geodesics" explain their behavior?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2007, 01:42:13 PM by ChiefConspirator »
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #107 on: October 24, 2007, 05:25:58 PM »
Force.

Not a force.


Seems like quite a big difference.  But I would expect actual physicists to know this.

The point is WHO CARES?
I care.

Quote
The question is, how does any of this explain the ridiculously complicated paths of the sun and moon? That is to say, how does being "in each other's geodesics" explain their behavior?
They are in each other's geodesics, thus they are traversing straight paths through four dimensions. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #108 on: October 24, 2007, 05:28:55 PM »
A geodesic is a concept...I don't see how they can be in them...
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #109 on: October 24, 2007, 05:32:12 PM »
Give me a quote which says gravity is not a force, straight from Einstein himself. If you can't, then I'm right.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #110 on: October 24, 2007, 05:33:11 PM »
A geodesic is a concept...I don't see how they can be in them...

Bah, geodesics. They still rely on the fact that time exists as more than a measurement, which is of course unprovable.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #111 on: October 24, 2007, 05:37:30 PM »
Go find a physicist who'll give a shit about the difference between the two. Have fun looking.

There is a response from one. Did you read?

Give me a quote which says gravity is not a force, straight from Einstein himself. If you can't, then I'm right.

Why does it have to be from Einstein? Resorting to shifting things when you've been shown to be wrong with more than five sources?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #112 on: October 24, 2007, 05:43:40 PM »
Go find a physicist who'll give a shit about the difference between the two. Have fun looking.

There is a response from one. Did you read?

Give me a quote which says gravity is not a force, straight from Einstein himself. If you can't, then I'm right.

Why does it have to be from Einstein? Resorting to shifting things when you've been shown to be wrong with more than five sources?

It's funny how that one of your "sources" quotes: "The phenomenon of gravity is real"
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #113 on: October 24, 2007, 05:44:31 PM »

Why does it have to be from Einstein? Resorting to shifting things when you've been shown to be wrong with more than five sources?
Well, why not? See, you can't. I win. Are those five sources straight from Einstein's words? Nope.

Who thought of the idea of general relativity which, in its concepts, seems to explain that gravity as a force does not exist? Einstein.


*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #114 on: October 24, 2007, 06:36:26 PM »
What part of General Relativity says gravity isn't real?!

As TheEngineer said earlier in this thread, "Gravity is a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial.   Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary."

Yeah, I can see how The Engineer is the Theory of General Relativity. 

Quote
Quote
"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
Amazing how no source is listed...   ;)
I assume you know that Wikipedia is unreliable without sources, especially for controversial topics?
Quote
Quote
"Is Gravity A Fictitious Force?

...

The strange and in some ways disturbing answer to this supposition is that the phenomenon of gravity (the fact that things fall, and have weight) is real, but the force of gravity, as described by Newton, is not a real force, but a fictitious force."

- http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

Quote
"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force)." - http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=ABE57453-E7F2-99DF-32538FF7C7B37F20

Quote
"You have it essentially right

mdivito@cevo.com wrote:
> user_email -- mdivito@cevo.com
> question -- I was just looking for some clarification of a few things in regards to gravitation.
>
> GR basically showcases that gravity as a force doesn't exist, correct?
>
> Now, as I understand it, gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity?
>
>
>
>   

--
******************************************
F. Todd Baker
225 Henderson Ave.
Athens, GA 30602

Email: tbaker@physast.uga.edu
Phone: 706-546-xxxx
Cell: 706-714-xxxx
Web: http://www.ftoddbaker.com/
******************************************"

Quote
"This is analogous to what mass does to the structure of space-time. It causes a depression to form so that if an object  rolls toward it, it falls into the pit and is captured. (This, by the way, is how Einstein envisioned how gravity works. Mass distorts the space-time causing particles to roll toward the mass. Note that the objects follow the shape of the space-time and in this sense are following an unforced motion! That is, there is no gravitational force, objects are simply following their natural motions.)" - http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/lecture-2/gw.html

Ignoring the controversy concerning whether or not to classify gravity as a force would leave you empty-handed. Classification is not relevant. Besides their is an exception to pretty much every rule I can think of. Gravity is classified as a force or not like light is partially considered particle/wave. Consider that no source you found doesn't have a countering source. Gravity isn't automatically fictional if people classify it differently. ::)

Quote from: Wiki on Non Inertial Frames of Reference
An apparent exception would seem to be the force of gravity, which is also proportional to the mass upon which it acts. Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force. In his theory, the free-falling reference frame is equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). By contrast, Einstein noted that observers standing on the Earth are experiencing an unrecognized acceleration from the normal force pushing up on their feet and, thus, are in a non-inertial (accelerated) reference frame. Further details may be found under general relativity.

Quote
Every other source I have seen reinforces the concept that Einstein didn't see gravity as fictitious nor gravitation.

Gravitation is not fictitious.

I didn't say that it was. I suppose it might be unclear, but I can only see two ways it could be interpreted anyhow. 1. Neither gravity or gravitation is fictitious. or 2. Gravity isn't fictitious and gravity isn't gravitation. Never said gravitation was fictitious.

Quote
It seems that you and other FE'ers pick and choose which parts of laws of physics to support your claims and toss away the rest.

Other FEers? Supporting what claims? Picked what?

Supporting the claim that gravity is fictitious when you keep gravitation. Two elements of GR.

Quote from: TheEngineer
Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary."

Why do you think gravity isn't caused as the deformation of space? Once, again classifying gravity as a force or not is not a complete argument by any means.

Quote from: Wiki on GR
So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing.

How does this one help your case again?

And where is my response to your disagreement with TheEngineer? I need to understand everybody's position on the subject.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #115 on: October 24, 2007, 07:06:21 PM »
Force.

Not a force.


Seems like quite a big difference.  But I would expect actual physicists to know this.

The point is WHO CARES?
I care.

Quote
The question is, how does any of this explain the ridiculously complicated paths of the sun and moon? That is to say, how does being "in each other's geodesics" explain their behavior?
They are in each other's geodesics, thus they are traversing straight paths through four dimensions. 

Come on. So you believe gravity exists, you just want to call it something else, specify that it's NOT a force, but otherwise behaves completely the same way.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #116 on: October 24, 2007, 07:06:48 PM »
Give me a quote which says gravity is not a force, straight from Einstein himself. If you can't, then I'm right.
Show me how gravity is a force.  If you can't, then I'm right. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #117 on: October 24, 2007, 07:08:50 PM »
A geodesic is a concept...I don't see how they can be in them...

Bah, geodesics. They still rely on the fact that time exists as more than a measurement, which is of course unprovable.
General Relativity has plenty of proof.

It's funny how that one of your "sources" quotes: "The phenomenon of gravity is real"
Because it is.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #118 on: October 24, 2007, 07:10:20 PM »
only speculative proof
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Gravity: a repost
« Reply #119 on: October 24, 2007, 07:10:52 PM »
Show me how gravity is a force.  If you can't, then I'm right. 

Jump off an airplane.

Now, give me the quotes? See, you can't.  Einstein never said gravity as a force does not exist. You fail.