Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com> <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
 <00a9cb00ad7df66a0aaeefeac11278a7@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: Z21mXy4aViMECdoj65784hv6EmI
JNTP-ThreadID: 23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 24 12:13:22 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-09-09T12:13:22Z/9015387"; posting-account="4@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid>
Bytes: 4317
Lines: 45

Le 09/09/2024 à 05:33, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> Yes, it is idiotic, not only because it pretends curved space explains
> the cause of gravity. This is typical of the pretentious nature of
> relativity. The equivalence principle also pretends to explain the cause
> of gravity and does not in the slightest. The above-cited article
> discusses how Einstein modifies Newton's idea about inertial motion,
> claiming that gravity is a sort of inertial motion. Since gravity causes
> accelerating motion, I beg to differ. The second reason it is idiotic is
> that it all rests on presuming gravity can be explained similarly to
> electromagnetism. Einstein adopted this from Heaviside's 1893 work. Now
> that the unified field theory has "failed" [-Britannica], there are few
> grounds to pretend gravity can be explained this way. Yet some persist,
> as with gravitoelectromagnetism (abbreviated GEM), attempting to find
> evidence from gravity probe B. Gravity and electromagnetism have little
> in common. Only that they are both forces obeying the inverse square
> rule; otherwise, they are very different. One affects only some
> materials, while the other affects all matter. One can be shielded while
> the other cannot. Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed is
> not c. Laplace and Van Flandern estimate its speed to be near infinite
> enough to avoid any appreciable effect of angular momentum. If the speed
> of gravity were c, the angular momentum would be such that the Earth
> would move out twice its distance from the Sun in just 1,200 years.
> Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed must be millions of
> times that of light.

The idea of ​​the deformation of space by bodies has always amused me.
Poincaré starts from the idea that photons are perhaps not little things 
that surf on the ether or in the ether, and he comes to pose a magnificent 
principle: there is no need for the ether to explain things, and it seems 
that there is no ether, and that the void is really empty.
Einstein modifies the thought by reintroducing a kind of ether that curves 
space with its little muscular fingers.
This is not very rational.
As for two things: the curvature of the sun's rays in the perisolar 
atmosphere, in view of the enormous ejections of matter and gas that we 
see, is it not precisely due to diffractive effects?
The same goes for galaxies, which must attract a little gas on the 
periphery around them (tiny quantities but over billions of millions of 
kilometers). Finally, the precession of Mercury's perihelion... Isn't a 
simple RR effect possible? Either because time does not pass in the same 
way (Mercury's faster speed), or because in Mercury's frame of reference, 
the Sun performs a revolution different from the reciprocal (since the 
frame of reference is no longer quite the same).

R.H.