Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 16:24:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com>
 <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
 <00a9cb00ad7df66a0aaeefeac11278a7@www.novabbs.com>
 <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:24:51 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <beScnQ-J8qPMvEL7nZ2dnZfqnPR8IaAr@giganews.com>
Lines: 53
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wxn+jA+gqYZWK5pV08P9hxn6uJPDBJSolM4xkTOjYACo7Y1DB2+q0dk4MvUOnt/tQCSOO6uqhayjMHs!Oxto5L8fkXPXKhBeajTqwbqWDA+UxDwkRrBYu57a1mr9aR3O0i5kToJCx5FvCXj7U9m66Z36paEg!yA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4533

On 09/09/2024 05:13 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.

Space-frames and frame-spaces: make for complementary notions
as with regards to filling in that "surface's volumes are mostly space".

Rahem-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen, ....