General Relativity Isn't a Stand-Alone Model for Gravity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon

i guess u could say... ure pushing on a string

theory

---

fuck string theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lisa

FFS plug drugs, I spent pages explaining gravity to you just a couple of weeks ago when you went posting in that science forum. Go back and re-read that. Honestly it's a theory most people have been able to grasp for centuries. It gets tedious doing this every time especially if I would just be repeating what we discussed weeks ago. Try actually listening to the scientists instead of making up your own rubbish.

I'm sick of this. It offends me, when it comes to posting about science plug drugs get it right or don't post it at all. Otherwise if you insist on making up rubbish then go post with creationists.

---

No you didn't, you posted an image of that dumb 'trampoline' picture used in 5th grade science books to explain space-time to kids (and teachers, really)

you need to understand the change in the models for gravity throughout history. Starting with Newton (although I don't necessarily think he is the first one to think or mention it; maybe 'English' history is just going to credit 'English' scientists, but he was a badass either way); then when you have to account for the speed of light, you need to understand that this entailed more than just 'that', there is a re-conceptualization of space involved as well -- Einstein had to float around getting help from mathematics professors and colleagues for years to get the tensors together

Then you need to understand what it actually means when applying it to the real world or other branches of physics; for example, if light bends around massive objects, but gravity is a force, then how can a 'force' be affecting the trajectory of another force? If you decide that gravity isn't a 'force', but instead just geodesics of space-time curvature, then why is it treated mathematically as a force? That last one is still a question being asked by physicists today, by the way - although they usually realize that the equation is just an equation, and when they need to they are able to account for the inconsistencies using common sense.

Do you have that common sense Lisa? You do, but you don't ever try putting it into words or math; try it

That little thing you've noticed that people on the internet are talking about gravity, it could very well be more than just what it's easiest for you to view it as; it could be the human species finally being able to answer these questions by having a medium for openly exchanging ideas. Each brain of every person doing that on the internet is having to work together to put it together; maybe that's what it takes for us to literally 'process' such ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

No you didn't, you posted an image of that dumb 'trampoline' picture used in 5th grade science books to explain space-time to kids (and teachers, really)

---

Even kids can grasp the concept, so where does that leave you? Especially considering you think it's a trampoline.

plug drugs creed youtubes and push gravity bullshit,,

string theory obviously correct, it has the right number of dimensions, it unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, even stephen hawking knows this and he's crippled and in a wheelchair and blows his words through a tube, drug-addled posting wins again

Push gravity, now that's a street smart theory right there.

http://i.imgur.com/TEctsYl.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

Due to its inclusion of the gravitational constant. The reason simply being that any 'force' must always have an equal and opposite force preceding it, as is consistent with the most fundamental of physical laws.
The gravitational constant in both GR and Newtonian gravity describes precisely the opposite: a force that, as far as the math in the equations describes, comes out of no where.

The tensors describing warped space-time in the General Relativity field equations do not, themselves, describe any attractive force. Without the gravitational constant in the equation, there would be no explanation for the phenomenon of free-fall; objects in a gravitational field at rest relative to the gravitational field would simply hover there - although a curvature in the object's path would still be evident when that object is moving.

In this manner, the inclusion of the gravitational constant is a sort of 'easy way out' of having to explain the origin of gravitational attraction what initiates free-fall.

If you ask me, what is actually occurring takes place at the subatomic level:
The Zitterbewegung (German word for trembling motion) of all particles at the subatomic level, where particles move spontaneously in different directions at the whim of any/all fields affecting the particle, results in the trajectory of subatomic particles to resemble what could be thought of a knot.
Due to this momentum in multiple different directions in a short increment of time, the particle experiences free-fall as it travels faster-farther when traveling through the warped space-time of a gravity well.
Gravity, then, is not an attractive force at all; rather, it is the macroscopic consequence of repulsive forces at the subatomic level.

Because of this, gravity can never be its own force in the standard model, as it is the result of many existing forces which accumulate into the observed effect of gravity.
In order to be a complete model of gravity, the gravitational constant would have to be replaced with local averages.
A new tensor might also need to be added describing the blocking of radiation by massive objects and how it contributes to the object's gravitational field.

---

Yeah uh push gravity has been conclusively proven to be incorrect. Only a couple of weeks before this plug drugs had myself and a whole forum of actual scientists explain gravity to him and he is still failing to grasp it. He muddles in old disproven theories with other unrelated other theories and comes up with something that combines some big words but makes no actual sense at all

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...-not-work.html


Further he tried this in a forum with actual scientists and still tries to claim that everyone else just uses a Wikipedia article to formulate ideas, he was talking to actual scientists with actual degrees and jobs in the field. Where does he think he is getting his nonsense from? He doesn't have any verified learning on any of this and he doesn't even know how to study a subject, any subject in a valid way.


See the thing is, none of that post about gravity is actually correct at all and it doesn't make any sense.

http://i.imgur.com/jbEEer6.gif

push gravity confirmed for real

i guess nobody noticed that lisa's rep went from red to green in this thread maybe you guys should read it again from the beginning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon

push gravity confirmed for real

---

LOL

What is up with you jon? Lol it's weird