- #1
latter
- 37
- 0
I have been reading a book on hyperspace and again the author has gone back over
EINSTEIN,s space gravity thing.
And i have this problem that reoccur,s everytime this happens which is many times over many years
and its this.
All the authors seem to be saying that when a planet gets to the dip or slope in the sheet(this is the
cannon ball in the miidle of a sheet thing)and goes over the edge it has done this becuase its following warped space
.Now it is the "it has done it because" that i am unsure. Which one they are suggesting it is.
1. It is really following a track like scalextric track that is in space or a force that again is in or is space.
2. Now this is the one i think they are trying to say is what's happening but i don't buy it.It is that the planet is some how just rolling
over the edge and starts to roll down "because (and this is the bit that gets me)" that's what happens on Earth now that's the way it would happen
if you rolled a ball across a sheet with a dip in it.this would be using our pre exsiting ideas of what gravity is
to illustrate Einsteins gravity. this is surely wrong.
Also in the idea "planets are following a track which is in space or is space" ,i still have a
thing i dislike we have gotten rid of gravitons with Einsteins gravity but have replaced it
with something else that has to be found. the tracks or force of what is changing the direction of the planet. And when you
think that the gravitons where controlled by the mass .Now what do we find "space" is CONTROLLED BY MASS but really when we say space we mean the tracks
or whatever it is .If you notice these 2 ideas tracks in space and gravitons both controlled by mass one is separate from space
the other is space.they become almost the same thing.Its ok, but with these books the authors seem to suggest we have got rid of the need for a force
and the geometery of space deals with it.I don't see it.Can someone set me straight.
EINSTEIN,s space gravity thing.
And i have this problem that reoccur,s everytime this happens which is many times over many years
and its this.
All the authors seem to be saying that when a planet gets to the dip or slope in the sheet(this is the
cannon ball in the miidle of a sheet thing)and goes over the edge it has done this becuase its following warped space
.Now it is the "it has done it because" that i am unsure. Which one they are suggesting it is.
1. It is really following a track like scalextric track that is in space or a force that again is in or is space.
2. Now this is the one i think they are trying to say is what's happening but i don't buy it.It is that the planet is some how just rolling
over the edge and starts to roll down "because (and this is the bit that gets me)" that's what happens on Earth now that's the way it would happen
if you rolled a ball across a sheet with a dip in it.this would be using our pre exsiting ideas of what gravity is
to illustrate Einsteins gravity. this is surely wrong.
Also in the idea "planets are following a track which is in space or is space" ,i still have a
thing i dislike we have gotten rid of gravitons with Einsteins gravity but have replaced it
with something else that has to be found. the tracks or force of what is changing the direction of the planet. And when you
think that the gravitons where controlled by the mass .Now what do we find "space" is CONTROLLED BY MASS but really when we say space we mean the tracks
or whatever it is .If you notice these 2 ideas tracks in space and gravitons both controlled by mass one is separate from space
the other is space.they become almost the same thing.Its ok, but with these books the authors seem to suggest we have got rid of the need for a force
and the geometery of space deals with it.I don't see it.Can someone set me straight.