🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 16, 12:30 am, Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
> Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
> Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
> an attractive force between bodies.
>
>   EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
>   - SPACE AND TIME BEND
>
>   Ninety years after he
>   expounded his famous theory,
>   a $700m NASA probe has
>   proved that the universe
>   behaves as he said. [read
>   the entire article below]
>
> Actually, although what this experiment
> PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive
> force between bodies" [merely], the results
> are still misinterpreted here in the usual
> nonsensical gibberish of conventional
> "physics-talk" of the past century: In effect,
> these interpreters speak of "space-time"
> bending* because they are not yet aware
> of the true evolution of the universe: They
> have discovered that the universe behaves
> as I describe it does [and which you can
> read at:http://physics.sdrodrian.com]
> but they interpret it in their antediluvian
> understanding (it's as if the scientists who
> once believed that the entire universe
> revolved around the planet earth were
> interpreting this discovery in terms of that
> once so universally-held ancient superstition).
>
> ONLY my description of a universe which
> has evolved across immense amounts of
> time from unimaginably vast volumes of
> space could have produced/accumulated
> the "energy" that today powers it. No other
> explanation accounts for the prodigious
> amounts of energy infused into every
> last/smallest bit of the universe's matter.
> And not even the pretty fable of a magic
> [Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole
> of "Creation" ... for no reason at all.
>
> But, of course, this remains for yet another
> more impressive understanding still.
>
> S D Rodrianhttp://sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3.sdrodrian.comhttp://caruso.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
> .
> * Space is strictly/only the absence of
> anything between instances of something.
> And Time is merely the human mind's
> attempt to synchronize one or more of
> the universe's unrelated motions with/to
> one of more of the universe's other
> unrelated motion(s).       --SDR
>
> START QUOTE
>
>  Now the race is on to show
>  that the other half of
>  relativity also works--
>  for decades physicists have
>  been asking the question:
>  did Albert Einstein get it
>  wrong? After half a century,
>  seven cancellations and
>  $700m, a mission to test
>  his theory about the
>  universe has finally confirmed
>  that the man was a
>  mastermind -- or at
>  least half proved it.
>
>  The early results from Gravity
>  Probe B, one of Nasa's
>  most complicated satellites,
>  confirmed yesterday 'to
>  a precision of better than
>  1 per cent' the assertion
>  Einstein made 90 years ago
>  -- that an object such as
>  the Earth does indeed
>  distort the fabric of space and
>  time.
>
>  But this -- what is referred
>  to as the 'geodetic'
>  effect -- is only half of
>  the theory. The other,
>  'frame-dragging', stated
>  that as the world spins it
>  drags the fabric of the
>  universe behind it.
>
>  Francis Everitt, the Stanford
>  University professor
>  who has devoted his life to
>  investigating Einstein's
>  theory of relativity, told
>  scientists at the American
>  Physical Society it would
>  be another eight months
>  before he could measure
>  the 'frame-dragging' effect
>  precisely.
>
>  'Understanding the details
>  is a bit like an
>  archeological dig,' said
>  William Bencze, programme
>  manager for the mission.
>  'A scientist starts with a
>  bulldozer, follows with
>  a shovel, then finally uses
>  dental picks and toothbrushes
>  to clear the dust away.
>  We're passing out the
>  toothbrushes now.'
>
>  The Gravity Probe B
>  project was conceived in the
>  late 1950s but suffered
>  decades of delays while other
>  scientists ran tests
>  corroborating Einstein's theory.
>  It was Everitt's determination
>  that stopped it being
>  cancelled. The joint
>  mission between Nasa and
>  Stanford University uses
>  four of the most perfect
>  spheres -- ultra precise
>  gyroscopes -- to detect
>  minute distortions in th
>  e fabric of the universe.
>  Everitt's aim was to prove
>  to the highest precision
>  yet if Einstein was correct
>  in the way he described
>  gravity.
>
>  According to Einstein, in
>  the same way that a large
>  ball placed on a elasticated
>  cloth stretches the
>  fabric and causes it to
>  sag, so planets and stars
>  warp space-time. A marble
>  moving along the sagging
>  cloth will be drawn
>  towards the ball, as the Earth is
>  to the Sun, but not fall
>  into it as long as it keeps
>  moving at speed. Gravity,
>  argued Einstein, was not an
>  attractive force between
>  bodies as had been
>  previously thought.
>
>  Few scientists need the
>  final results, which will be
>  revealed in December, to
>  convince them of Einstein's
>  genius. 'From the most
>  esoteric aspects of time
>  dilation through to the
>  beautiful and simple
>  equation, e=mc2, the vast
>  bulk of Einstein's ideas
>  about the universe are
>  standing up to the test of
>  time,' said Robert Massey,
>  from the Royal
>  Astronomical Society.
>
>  He said the mission was
>  'legitimate science' to test
>  a theory and confirm its
>  brilliance, but others have
>  criticised the costs and
>  length of the study,
>  claiming that what was
>  announced had already been
>  shown. Sir Martin Rees,
>  the Astronomer Royal, said
>  the announcement would
>  'fork no lightning'.
>
>      The theory explained
>
>  When Einstein wrote his
>  general theory of relativity
>  in 1915, he found a new
> way to describe gravity. It
>  was not a force, as
>  Sir Isaac Newton had supposed,
>  but a consequence of the
>  distortion of space and
>  time, conceived together
>  in his theory as
>  'space-time'. Any object
>  distorts the fabric of
>  space-time and the bigger
>  it is, the greater the
>  effect.
>
>  Just as a bowling ball
>  placed on a trampoline
>  stretches the fabric and
>  causes it to sag, so planets
>  and stars warp space-time
>  -- a phenomenon known as
>  the 'geodetic effect'. A
>  marble moving along the
>  trampoline will be drawn
>  inexorably towards the ball.
>
>  Thus the planets orbiting
>  the Sun are not being
>  pulled by the Sun; they
>  are following the curved
>  space-time deformation
>  caused by the Sun. The reason
>  the planets never fall into
>  the Sun is because of the
>  speed at which they are travelling.
>
>  According to the theory,
>  matter and energy distort
>  space-time, curving it
>  around themselves. 'Frame
>  dragging' theoretically occurs
>  when the rotation of a
>  large body 'twists' nearby
>  space and time. It is this
>  second part of Einstein's
>  theory that the Nasa
>  mission has yet to corroborate.
>  More at:
>
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe
>
> *******************************
>
> On Jun 15, 8:10 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:> On Jun 15, 4:36 pm, Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yet Another SDRodrianPrediction True:
> > > Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
> > > an attractive force between bodies.
>
> > >   EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
> > >   - SPACE AND TIME BEND
>
> > Here is the actual prediction, where
> > Rodrian said Eisntein was wrong:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math/msg/1bd728a9d08e959c
>
>
>
> > David A. Smith
>
> Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays
> when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is
> robbing me of all I once was. So I went to
> that ancient post to see where I had said
> Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an
> attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not
> find such a statement by me. I can't even
> find any discussion of this matter in that
> post at all. It would be as unexpected that
> I should say such a thing as that I should
> say that whales wear shoes! Perhaps you
> didn't read the post yourself. So here's a
> pertinent quote from THAT post by SDR:
>
> START QUOTE
>
>   Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once
>   & for all of that goofy 19th Century delusion
>   ... the Ether! Too bad Einstein simply
>   replaced one myth with another myth
>   (namely, the delusion that Time AND space
>   have pertinent/critical existence... while
>   the truth is that Time only exists in our
>   minds, and Space is only the absence of
>   anything existing there--But one can't
>   have everything, so I give thanks for all
>   Einstein gave us and ignore the usual
>   human prejudices inherent to the age one
>   inhabits).
>
> END QUOTE
>
> It seems to me I am still as consistent as
> always. Therefore, trust me: Go thou to
>      http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> and learn the true nature of the universe,
> how it all came about and why it works
> the way it does. Once you do, all your
> questions will be answered at last, all your
> quests finally brought to sweet fruition.
>
> S D Rodrianhttp://sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3.sdrodrian.comhttp://caruso.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
>
> ***********************************
>
> Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
> posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?
>
> Because Homer Simpson lives there, and then
> they would have to imagine themselves talking
> with Bart and listening to his mother's shrill
> voice ... and that's a bit more than even the
> nuts and idiots who become mathematicians
> can stomach. But that's THE ONLY reason:
> Were it not for Homer Simpson the world of
> physics would be polluted with every sort of
> nutty/nonsensical theory about two-dimensional
> mathematics-only "realities" (because that is
> the nature of morons/monkeys who otherwise
> become mathematicians)... exactly as the
> world of physics is now polluted with nutty/
> nonsensical theories about more-than-three
> dimensional mathematics-only "realities" which,
> like the notion of Time) can only exist in the
> human mind.
>
> Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! Now
> let me go shower to wash away all the contempt
> that monkey mathematicians make me exude.
>
> S D Rodrian hath spoken.http://sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3.sdrodrian.comhttp://caruso.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local.
> Only science is universal.
>
> .

In this spacetime it is just about imossible to go against Einstein's
GR   It proves gravity is space concave curve. Magnetisim is a
particle exchange force.  Both very different.   Best to keep in mind
my Concave & Convex theory   It answers hard questions and is Nobel
thinking    TreBert

On Jun 16, 7:20 am, bert
<herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
> In this spacetime it is just about
> impossible to go against Einstein's
> GR   It proves gravity is space
> concave curve.   TreBert

Dear Bert, read my post AND try
to understand it,  --SDR

RE:

On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
<Uncle...@hate.spam.net> burst out
of his strait-jacket and began hollering:

>   Aardvark wrote:
>> Yet Another SDRodrian Prediction True:
>> Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
>> an attractive force between bodies.

> Convince the moon.

If the universe is a black hole, and everything
in it is forever imploding away from where
the universe no longer is: How would YOU
convince the moon to take a bus OUT of the
universe and stop trying to endlessly "fall
into the earth?" Betcha never thought of that.
As usual...

> 1928-1931 Einstein, M ntz, Weitzenb ck,
> Grommer, Lanczos, Cartan, and
> Mayer formulated teleparallel gravitation,
> "Fernparallelismus," that
> collapsed to General Relativity for
> Equivalence Principle = true.  It
> predicted EP violation coupled to
> angular momentum (physical spin,
> particle spin, particle orbit, relativistic
> spin-orbit coupling),
> arxiv:0812.0034 and such.
> Spacetime torsion not curvature.
> Spacetime torsion is trivially testible,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ertor1.jpg
>
> idiot

Dear idiot: Next time try reading
what you "comment" on--it probably
would help (although I doubt it);
and then you wouldn't have to think
of yourself as such an idiot): I did
not say GR was "wrong." I said it was
misinterpreted into nonsense. You
live in a world where everything is
interpreted (by your idols) in terms
of the earth being flat. Move on!
The longer you live... the less time
you have remaining in which to hit
upon the truth. (Were you intelligent
instead of merely nervously clever.)

Dear Uncle Brainiac: I will try to
make it as simple as possible (even
though I acknowledge that, no
matter how simple I make it, I can
ever make it simple enough for
you to grasp--not that you're stupid,
but that you are religiously
atttached to the "once" universally
held --and mathematically proven--
theory of Ptolemy that the universe
revolves around a stationary earth
... or something):

Imagine that an earth-bound man
has a rope around the moon (the
moon that wants to fly away from
the earth in a straight line):
Calculate the amount of energy
such a man will have to expend
pulling on that rope in order to
keep the moon from flying away
into outer space: that is the
impossible task you are placing
upon a graviton-based "gravity."
WHERE is the energy the earth
HAS TO BE expending in order
to keep hold of the moon coming
from? Answer THAT, and you
have answered EVERYTHING. Or
go to http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Because there is no traceable
expenditure of energy on the
part of the earth involved in its
holding on to the moon, the
ONLY possible answer is that
the earth is NOT pulling on
the moon AT ALL. [Hint: Why
are we measuring the speed of
spiral galaxy arms as going faster
than their escape velocity?] And
then it must be as clear as such
a fact can ever possibly become
(even to someone as matter-
of-fact dense as you) that the
reason why the moon is "forever
trying to fall into the earth"
HAS to be because EVERYTHING
in the universe is forever "falling"
towards everything else [including
the moon towards the earth, and
the earth/moon system towards
the Sun, and the solar system
towards the Milky Way Galaxy,
and the MWG towards the rest
of the local group, et al], and
it has ALL been doing so from
even before there was "any
thing at all." And THAT is where
the entirety of the universe's
energy comes from--And no
place else. [And now you've
solved the problem with galaxies'
over-energetic spiral arms, and
thereby eliminated most if not
all of the need for black matter.]

The reason why so few of today's
"great minds" understand this
astonishingly simple observation
is the same reason why yesterday's
"great minds" once imagined &
mathematically proved a geocentric
universe, and before that imagined
a flat earth, and before that
imagined Apollo riding his fiery
chariot across the heavens... and
intellectualy flattened with their
marvelously intricate arguments
anyone who dared to suggest
anything different): Trust me, I
have been sadly resigned to "the
human condition" since early in
childhood... therefore I can live
with it: Humanity has grown up
all this time without anyone to
teach it any better. Therefore it
has always been & remains to
this day like a baby convinced of
the most unimaginable nonsense,
and committing the most
unimaginable crimes... without
giving any of it a second thought.

But compare the truth that is the
"evolution" of an imploding universe
to the lovely [Big Bang] fable that
everything burst forth suddenly/
inexplicably out of a magic bean:
The fact is that the universe originates
from an unimaginably vast area of
space which in a thermodynamic
collapse is (even now) imploding
into the "singularity" we know as
"the visible universe." And that is
a truth which is as impossible to
dispute as the fact that the Sun
is at the center of the Solar System
--and no matter how many pretty
fables now, in past, or in future...
superstition may affront reason/
logic with.

>>   Ninety years after he
>>   expounded his famous theory,
>>   a $700m NASA probe has
>>   proved that the universe
>>   behaves as he said. [read
>>   the entire article below]

>    1) Galactic rotation curves vs. radius.
>    2) The Bullet Nebula and gravitational
>        lensing absent baryonic mass.
>    3) idiot

But "dear" idiot: I am not denying ANY
observational results, merely explaining
them in light of the way the universe
really works: You keep citing observational
results which are in fact supportive of my
description of the universe as imploding!
I don't think your brains are on right:
Check the mirror. You are suffering from
never-ending terminal knee-jerkiness, you
jerk!

>> ONLY my description of a universe which
>> has evolved across immense amounts of
>> time from unimaginably vast volumes of
>> space could have produced/accumulated
>> the "energy" that today powers it.
>
> [snip more crap]

OMG: You have to cut down on your roughage,
idiot. [... Couldn't explain where the Big Bang
got its energy either, eh. Sure, I understand.]

>    1) Account for the universe's natural
>        abundances of hydrogen,
>        helium, lithium, and boron.

Certainly: They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

>    2) Account for current summed WMAP
          observations.

Sure:  They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

>    3) Account for large scale filamentous
>        distribution of galaxies.

Of course:  It is all the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

>    4) idiot

Don't abuse yourself too much, idiot:
It'll leave you blinder than you already are!
How're you gonna find your ass then?
And you in there with a pair of shears!
Ouch!

>> * Space is strictly/only the absence of
>> anything between instances of something.
>> And Time is merely the human mind's
>> attempt to synchronize one or more of
>> the universe's unrelated motions with/to
>> one of more of the universe's other
>> unrelated motion(s).
>
> [snip rest of crap]

There's that over-abundance of roughage
again (and painful deficiency of factual
counter-arguments). Okay. Here we go:

>    1) The momentum four-vector.
>    2) The metric.
>    3) The quantitiative empirical validation
>        of all GR predictions.
>    4)idiot.

 Not to mention "dropletological constancy"
--the fact that all droplets of rain everywhere
in the world display an eerie predisposition to
fall (down)... AND at the same rate of velocity,
AND with an uncanny equivalency of moisture
that is just NOT to be believed!!! You forgot to
mention THAT (you're getting old, idiot... and
ingesting way, way too much Metamucil).

You're a waste of time, Uncle Al.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.


************************************

On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
<Uncle...@hate.spam.net> again burst out
of his strait-jacket and began hollering again:

> Aardvark wrote:
> [snip crap]

We'll have to wait until Unk Al
finishes his work in the crapper.
[How he takes a pair of shears
in there with him is a definite
sign of bravery/mental illness.]

>> Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
>> posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?
>
>    1) Volume.
>    2) idiot

Well then: STOP eating so much roughage,
dude. For Heaven's sake: Your production
of crap is unsustainable (by your toilet in
the long run... and really, really choking/
stinky in the short term)~!

>> Because Homer Simpson lives there,
>
> [snip more crap]
> idiot

This might take awhile....

>> Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson!
> [snip more crap]

Doh!

>>  Francis Everitt, the Stanford
>>  University professor
>>  who has devoted his life to
>>  investigating Einstein's
>>  theory of relativity, told
>>  scientists at the American
>>  Physical Society it would
>>  be another eight months
>>  before he could measure
>>  the 'frame-dragging' effect
>>  precisely.
>
> [snip rest of crap]

Ah! I think we might be getting
to the end of this at last!... But,
idiot: Your argument is with other
scientists on this one, not with me.
I merely quote them. If those
scientists are wrong, then I'll just
have to quote some other scientists
who are right. What's that to me!

> Gravity Probe B was a disaster of
> patch potentials.  William
> Fairbanks, also at Stanford, knew
> how to handle patch potentials.

Then he shoulda told somebody--and
saved the taxpayers 700 million wazullas!

Thankfully I have more time to waste on
you nowadays, Uncle Al.

SDR

********************************
RE:

Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.

  EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
  - SPACE AND TIME BEND

  Ninety years after he
  expounded his famous theory,
  a $700m NASA probe has
  proved that the universe
  behaves as he said. [read
  the entire article below]

Actually, although what this experiment
PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive
force between bodies" [merely], the results
are still misinterpreted here in the usual
nonsensical gibberish of conventional
"physics-talk" of the past century: In effect,
these interpreters speak of "space-time"
bending* because they are not yet aware
of the true evolution of the universe: They
have discovered that the universe behaves
as I describe it does [and which you can
read at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com ]
but they interpret it in their antediluvian
understanding (it's as if the scientists who
once believed that the entire universe
revolved around the planet earth were
interpreting this discovery in terms of that
once so universally-held ancient superstition).

ONLY my description of a universe which
has evolved across immense amounts of
time from unimaginably vast volumes of
space could have produced/accumulated
the "energy" that today powers it. No other
explanation accounts for the prodigious
amounts of energy infused into every
last/smallest bit of the universe's matter.
And not even the pretty fable of a magic
[Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole
of "Creation" ... for no reason at all.

But, of course, this remains for yet another
more impressive understanding still.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
* Space is strictly/only the absence of
  anything between instances of something.
  And Time is merely the human mind's
  attempt to synchronize one or more of
  the universe's unrelated motions with/to
  one of more of the universe's other
  unrelated motion(s).       --SDR

START QUOTE

 Now the race is on to show
 that the other half of
 relativity also works--
 for decades physicists have
 been asking the question:
 did Albert Einstein get it
 wrong? After half a century,
 seven cancellations and
 $700m, a mission to test
 his theory about the
 universe has finally confirmed
 that the man was a
 mastermind -- or at
 least half proved it.

 The early results from Gravity
 Probe B, one of Nasa's
 most complicated satellites,
 confirmed yesterday 'to
 a precision of better than
 1 per cent' the assertion
 Einstein made 90 years ago
 -- that an object such as
 the Earth does indeed
 distort the fabric of space and
 time.

 But this -- what is referred
 to as the 'geodetic'
 effect -- is only half of
 the theory. The other,
 'frame-dragging', stated
 that as the world spins it
 drags the fabric of the
 universe behind it.

 Francis Everitt, the Stanford
 University professor
 who has devoted his life to
 investigating Einstein's
 theory of relativity, told
 scientists at the American
 Physical Society it would
 be another eight months
 before he could measure
 the 'frame-dragging' effect
 precisely.

 'Understanding the details
 is a bit like an
 archeological dig,' said
 William Bencze, programme
 manager for the mission.
 'A scientist starts with a
 bulldozer, follows with
 a shovel, then finally uses
 dental picks and toothbrushes
 to clear the dust away.
 We're passing out the
 toothbrushes now.'

 The Gravity Probe B
 project was conceived in the
 late 1950s but suffered
 decades of delays while other
 scientists ran tests
 corroborating Einstein's theory.
 It was Everitt's determination
 that stopped it being
 cancelled. The joint
 mission between Nasa and
 Stanford University uses
 four of the most perfect
 spheres -- ultra precise
 gyroscopes -- to detect
 minute distortions in th
 e fabric of the universe.
 Everitt's aim was to prove
 to the highest precision
 yet if Einstein was correct
 in the way he described
 gravity.

 According to Einstein, in
 the same way that a large
 ball placed on a elasticated
 cloth stretches the
 fabric and causes it to
 sag, so planets and stars
 warp space-time. A marble
 moving along the sagging
 cloth will be drawn
 towards the ball, as the Earth is
 to the Sun, but not fall
 into it as long as it keeps
 moving at speed. Gravity,
 argued Einstein, was not an
 attractive force between
 bodies as had been
 previously thought.

 Few scientists need the
 final results, which will be
 revealed in December, to
 convince them of Einstein's
 genius. 'From the most
 esoteric aspects of time
 dilation through to the
 beautiful and simple
 equation, e=mc2, the vast
 bulk of Einstein's ideas
 about the universe are
 standing up to the test of
 time,' said Robert Massey,
 from the Royal
 Astronomical Society.

 He said the mission was
 'legitimate science' to test
 a theory and confirm its
 brilliance, but others have
 criticised the costs and
 length of the study,
 claiming that what was
 announced had already been
 shown. Sir Martin Rees,
 the Astronomer Royal, said
 the announcement would
 'fork no lightning'.

     The theory explained

 When Einstein wrote his
 general theory of relativity
 in 1915, he found a new
way to describe gravity. It
 was not a force, as
 Sir Isaac Newton had supposed,
 but a consequence of the
 distortion of space and
 time, conceived together
 in his theory as
 'space-time'. Any object
 distorts the fabric of
 space-time and the bigger
 it is, the greater the
 effect.

 Just as a bowling ball
 placed on a trampoline
 stretches the fabric and
 causes it to sag, so planets
 and stars warp space-time
 -- a phenomenon known as
 the 'geodetic effect'. A
 marble moving along the
 trampoline will be drawn
 inexorably towards the ball.

 Thus the planets orbiting
 the Sun are not being
 pulled by the Sun; they
 are following the curved
 space-time deformation
 caused by the Sun. The reason
 the planets never fall into
 the Sun is because of the
 speed at which they are travelling.

 According to the theory,
 matter and energy distort
 space-time, curving it
 around themselves. 'Frame
 dragging' theoretically occurs
 when the rotation of a
 large body 'twists' nearby
 space and time. It is this
 second part of Einstein's
 theory that the Nasa
 mission has yet to corroborate.
 More at:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe


*******************************

On Jun 15, 8:10 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:36 pm, Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:
>
>> Yet Another SDRodrianPrediction True:
>> Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
>> an attractive force between bodies.
>
>>   EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
>>   - SPACE AND TIME BEND
>
> Here is the actual prediction, where
> Rodrian said Eisntein was wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math/msg/1bd728a9d08e959c

> David A. Smith

Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays
when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is
robbing me of all I once was. So I went to
that ancient post to see where I had said
Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an
attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not
find such a statement by me. I can't even
find any discussion of this matter in that
post at all. It would be as unexpected that
I should say such a thing as that I should
say that whales wear shoes! Perhaps you
didn't read the post yourself. So here's a
pertinent quote from THAT post by SDR:

START QUOTE

  Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once
  & for all of that goofy 19th Century delusion
  ... the Ether! Too bad Einstein simply
  replaced one myth with another myth
  (namely, the delusion that Time AND space
  have pertinent/critical existence... while
  the truth is that Time only exists in our
  minds, and Space is only the absence of
  anything existing there--But one can't
  have everything, so I give thanks for all
  Einstein gave us and ignore the usual
  human prejudices inherent to the age one
  inhabits).

END QUOTE

It seems to me I am still as consistent as
always. Therefore, trust me: Go thou to
     http://physics.sdrodrian.com
and learn the true nature of the universe,
how it all came about and why it works
the way it does. Once you do, all your
questions will be answered at last, all your
quests finally brought to sweet fruition.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

***********************************

Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?

Because Homer Simpson lives there, and then
they would have to imagine themselves talking
with Bart and listening to his mother's shrill
voice ... and that's a bit more than even the
nuts and idiots who become mathematicians
can stomach. But that's THE ONLY reason:
Were it not for Homer Simpson the world of
physics would be polluted with every sort of
nutty/nonsensical theory about two-dimensional
mathematics-only "realities" (because that is
the nature of morons/monkeys who otherwise
become mathematicians)... exactly as the
world of physics is now polluted with nutty/
nonsensical theories about more-than-three
dimensional mathematics-only "realities" which,
like the notion of Time) can only exist in the
human mind.

Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! Now
let me go shower to wash away all the contempt
that monkey mathematicians make me exude.

S D Rodrian hath spoken.
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.



.