General Relativity Revisited (What if gravity actully is a force?)

[shanesworld]

... Anyway, what kind of combined effects? This sounds like a hodgepodge of your personal views of what MIGHT be discovered at some later date, sans math or citations, or even a clear mission. I've noticed that what began as (a fairly crudely and nastily put) question has evolved into something else entirely once you didn't receive the feedback you wanted/expected. As for #2... given how long you've been on conjecture and how short you've been (with others here) anything concrete, I wouldn't throw stones.




Alternate frameworks? Such as? ... This is physics, so vague hints at a framework you have deigned not to share is singularly unilluminating.




Or, in common parlance: "I have no idea whatsoever", or, "I have a notion, AND an agenda."

Addressing this is simply to tempting to pass on. Oh well

1) 'Alternative framework' is simply the basis for comparing ANY theory to something else, besides its own content. Without such there is simply no external thesis or antithesis with which to conduct such analysis. Ex Theory1: 2*5=10 Theory 2: 2*5=(-2)(-5) Theory 3: 2*5=5+5. Conclusion: Theory 1 is consistent with the alternative frameworks of theories 2 and 3. I am not "hinting" towards any particular framework, simply making reference to the smorgasbord of any possibly alternative framework by which GR may be compared.

2) Combined effects hodgepodge? If you didn't read first paragraph very carefully, very specifically defined an example of the kind of thing I'm referring, which would classically speaking be adressed by, F=mg+qE a.k.a 'combined effects of both a gravitational source and an electric force on particle with electric charge q and gravitational charge m in static limit, what is so outlandish here?

3)Who's throwing stones?

4) 'I have no opinion is simply' saying I am not exercising any preconceived notions about what experimental results on such logical analysis/ inquiry would be at this time, it's probably better to take such statements as having no opinion'more literally, than trying to make it into something different that it is not.

 

[Mentz114]

Shane,

all your answers are vague and hand-wavey. You have shown no understanding or insight in this thread and ignored pretty much everything told to you. Now you want to define momentum 'one of the most abstract and subtle concepts ...' which is a change from your 'revisiting' of GR and 'gravity is a force' ( why 're-visit ? Have you been away ?) .

Regarding momentum, you could have mentioned that translational invariance implies conservation of momentum, or that momentum is a source of gravity, or Hamilton's conjugate momenta - but, you never say anything ! Are you a politician by any chance ?

[This was posted while you were posting, darn it]

I've read your post. The only thing worth commenting on is the idea of comparing GR to something ( a smorgasbord). Comparing GRs predictions with the facts is what matters. If another theory gave better predictions, it would be adopted.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Addressing this is simply to tempting to pass on. Oh well

1) 'Alternative framework' is simply the basis for comparing ANY theory to something else, besides its own content. Without such there is simply no external thesis or antithesis with which to conduct such analysis. Ex Theory1: 2*5=10 Theory 2: 2*5=(-2)(-5) Theory 3: 2*5=5+5. Conclusion: Theory 1 is consistent with the alternative frameworks of theories 2 and 3. I am not "hinting" towards any particular framework, simply making reference to the smorgasbord of any possibly alternative framework by which GR may be compared.

2) Combined effects hodgepodge? If you didn't read first paragraph very carefully, very specifically defined an example of the kind of thing I'm referring, which would classically speaking be adressed by, F=mg+qE a.k.a 'combined effects of both a gravitational source and an electric force on particle with electric charge q and gravitational charge m in static limit, what is so outlandish here?

3)Who's throwing stones?

4) 'I have no opinion is simply' saying I am not exercising any preconceived notions about what experimental results on such logical analysis/ inquiry would be at this time, it's probably better to take such statements as having no opinion'more literally, than trying to make it into something different that it is not.

That's what I thought... Pure sophistry without a hint of physics. Tiring... you really should read the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

[shanesworld]

Shane,


Regarding momentum, you could have mentioned that translational invariance implies conservation of momentum, or that momentum is a source of gravity, or Hamilton's conjugate momenta - but, you never say anything ! Are you a politician by any chance ?

(Damn it ,this whole forward slash thing keeps throwing me off with respect to the backslash thing in TeX..)
..Actually I'm a physicist by profession. From here, it appears there is a lack of understanding amongst many or the people whom have replied here...