Recent content by girlwonder

Okay, I've really thought about it. You're right. i get it now. It was a misunderstanding. The force would still be constant, but what fun I've had.

okay I'm going to prove this to you all, and I'm going to do it real simple like, real low-tech and cheap just to be a brat, a little experiment.

And there is no problem with the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. The problem is what we think we know about the relationship between gravity and mass. And you have to admit, our understanding of gravity is a bit loose, non?

OKay, maybe you're right, but i trust my mechanic and he said that eventually the force would get so strong as to break the cars, so i wouldn't do it with my car. Anyway, because i continue to learn and be open minded i will not be a crackpot. Can't you see that i must ellicit arguements by...

There, there, don't cry. i didn't cry when you said you wanted to burn me. Seven people now do. Scientists are mean, that's for sure.

Oh- and country boy rocks.

I think mechanics know a lot about mechanics. teehee. They do though, really. No physics, no car. EVERYTHING operates on physical law. I think the car is a perfect example. The effect I'm talking about could also be reproduced by "containing" the cars with a chain back to back. The wheels...

If both were equal masses and perfectly centered neither would appear to move, but the force would be measurable and increasing. i actually discussed it with an auto mechanic in terms of what would happen if you did that with cars. Pretty interesting.

Thanx a bunch.

I'm throwing out the whole object A object B thing. i was just trying to sound smart. Really, when i did the math on it, it seemed like if you accelerated two ojects against each other, the force would increase where they touched. Apparently there is a million ways of discounting that in actual...

If a mass is comprised of a certain fixed number of points that are assigned co-ordinates and you expand it , the value of these co-ordinates change just like they would if you moved the whole mass over, or up or down. Also to expand a mass generally involves energy, just like motion. If i...

Could you explain why please, that's where I'm lost i guess.

If expansion is motion, and space is expanding, and we consider space as void, how can it then move? Don't we have to consider space as "something" if it moves? If we consider space as "something", doesn't that launch us back to ether theories?

Oh my goodness, DaveC426913 (can i just call you Dave?), i think we are on the same page! However, object A and B are in very deep space and there is no external source of gravity, i should have stated that. Also, what is accelerating each object is also unspecified. In order to simplify...

Your logic is right, you've identified a paradox in GR that apparently has been noticed before. Nobody here would ever even consider revising Einstein. i say, if you can find a good solution, go ahead and revise GR. If no one was prepared to revise the previous works of the greats then we...