0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Also; maybe a bit more thinking through the experiment... if i'm in a spaceship accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 & i identify a point relative to the external space; it's easy to think i am accelerating that point as well; once i 'let go' of this imagined point, it's easy to conceive it falling through the floor of the ship, accelerating down at 9.8 m/s^2: gravity eats space, maybe? This is a temporally constrained description of the 'shape' of space-time. If we wanna conserve volume, we can say gravity eats space & spews time; how might that work out?
When you calculate the value of g you are calculating a value of acceleration. Just check the units. You have to be able to explain the mechanism that changes the value of an objects kinetic energy.
When you calculate the value of g you are calculating a value of acceleration. Just check the units. You have to be able to explain the mechanism that changes the value of an objects kinetic energy. What is it that causes an object to change its straight line trajectory towards a centre of mass. You will need field equations that are radically different from those of general relativity since it does not explain the mechanism of gravity. It is a pity that none of the 'new theories' posted here address this in any way.
What is particularly disturbing is the manner in which gravity has been 'divorced' from matter, as if it had nothing to do with it. This is patently false.
So what spin does a photon have? Why is that critical to the validity of your theory? If you don't know or don't understand the answer then you have no business in calling your speculations a theory.
I don't think it has been; every massive particle has its own spacetime: the universe is a sum of material spacetimes; instead of gravity divorced, universes are married to matter.
the quotidian realities of life
Take for instance the extremely simple and basic problem of how an electric current propagates in a wire. It is unfortunate but there is to date no reasonable explanation. YET a reasonable explanation does exist, if we simply give up the accepted explanation that it is electrons OR the 'electromagnetic field' that carry a current and consider a scenario where it is photons that carry out this function.
Everything falls into place .
How can you stick to 400 year old explanations for basic physics and then talk in terms of 'every massive particle having its own space time'. It doesn't make sense.
k; you gotta splain that one.
Are you aware of the explanation that involve the impedance of transmission lines, source/sink with reflections? Seems adequate to me
I'm not 'sticking' to anything except coherence.