[everymansmedium]

Dispersal of energy is always in a sphere. The energy disperses according to the square law. The square law was originally discovered as a result of comparison to the surface area of a sphere. The surface area increases as to the square of the radius.

If you have x number of square (inches/feet/miles) if r is times 2 then the area is 2^2 = 4
If the energy is dispersed over 4 times the area then the energy available in any specified area will be ¼
Or 1/r^2=E.

The bending of the light. Hold up something that will block the light. Put a hole in it. Now the light shines through the hole. Now you have a beam of light coming through the hole. I am sure that you can imagine bending this beam. Now if you take the item that was blocking some of the light away. The light that was shining through the hole will still be there and will still be bent but it will not be so obvious. The result will be evident by a non linear dispersal of the light. It will be brighter in some areas than it is in others. It is this variation in the intensity in one place relative to another from a specific source that will be indicative of the light from that distant source being effected by some potential interfering source.

John.

[RascalPuff]

Dear MJA:

Does this help any?

“Objects of such different nuclear constitution as aluminum and gold fall with accelerations that agree to better than one part in 10-11, according to Roll, Krotkov, and Di#k (1964), one of the most important null experiments in all physics. Individual molecues fall in step, too, with macroscopic objects (Estermann, Simpson and Stern - 193; and so do individual neutrons (Dabbs, Harvey, Paya and Horstmann - 1965), individual electrons (Wittborn and Fairbank - 1967), and individual mu mesons (Beall - 1970).”
- GRAVITATION, pp 13 - 16, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.


"A defect (*in the Newtonian Classical system of 3-D mechanics) eliminated only by the introduction of the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by mechanics (*The Newtonian system) itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point." - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p.71


"*In a neutron (cyclotron) experiment, a beam of fast neutrons close to that of the speed of light was shot into a moderator block, the emerging neutrons were observed to rain down from the block with about the same speed as rain droplets fall". - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 145


(*A beam of light projected horizonally over the earth's surface 'falls' at the same rate as any other test object. Only the hyper-speed of light sustains an apparently straight line, which is actually slightly parabolic, in accordance with slower moving - horizontally projected test objects with more easily measured arcs. - KBR)

Best regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by MJA Thanks Everyone for you imput, You all must have great faith in science to believe in the theories you've been taught. I have none. To get back to the question of star light being affected or bent by another star, namely the Sun; how does gravity in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity possibly affect a photon of zero rest mass while at the same time expelling it's own to the speed of 186,000 MPS? Or how does the Sun's gravity pull something with zero mass, and at the same time push or propel zero mass? How does the sun move nothing? Can you lean against a wall that has zero rest mass? Thanks again? = MJA

Basically, you have to forget that gravity is a force. General relativity states that gravity is the curvature of spacetime. A massive body (like the sun) curves spacetime, then any photon passing the sun will travel in this curved spacetime, according to the principle of least action (it takes the quickest path). Necessarily, this path is curved, hence light can be bent. Note that light travels on what is called a geodesic, the curved space analogue of a straight line.

[MJA]

Doesn't it take mass to be effected by force?
And is space mass?

=
MJA

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by MJA Doesn't it take mass to be effected by force? And is space mass? = MJA

I'm sure I just said that in general relativity gravity is not a force.

[MJA]

So the sun is not a force that curves the spacetime called gravity?
What is?

=
MJA

[Profpat]

[quote=MJA;41116]So the sun is not a force that curves the spacetime called gravity?
What is?



Isn't the sun, the MASS that curves the spacetime, called gravity?

[RascalPuff]

[quote=Profpat;41127]

Originally Posted by MJA So the sun is not a force that curves the spacetime called gravity? What is? Isn't the sun, the MASS that curves the spacetime, called gravity?

__________________
Dear MJA, Prof and whomever else it may concern:

The accompanying illustration has been used several times before on TOE threads, hopefully the moderators will understand that it's applications suit various occasions... It's an excerpt from my book with a diagram I drew, depicting the 4-D expansion of matter, representing the causal identity and dynamics of 'space-time' and it's 'curvature of space.'

...another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.


The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.

These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.

Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.


If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.


“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE


The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.





Copyright 1977 United Feature Syndicate Inc.
Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179
“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.


(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC


Best regards,
- RP

[MJA]

Originally Posted by neutralino I'm sure I just said that in general relativity gravity is not a force.

Thanks N,

But,

What you said is: "A massive body (like the Sun) curves spacetime."
Are you saying then that the massive Sun exerts no force on the curvature of spacetime.
Then what force curves spacetime and ultimately effects passing star light if it is not the force of the Sun?

=
MJA

[MJA]

Thanks Rp for your help,

Obviously the flaw in the comprehension of General Relativity is that it was a mathematical solution that fails simple comprehension, or rather comprehension of any degree. But I'll try!
Newtonian mechanics mathematically explained or tried to explain gravity as interactive forces between moving bodies in space.
Einstein defined it mathematically as the relationship between a body effecting space or time which can effect other bodies in space or time.
Or more simply,
In Newton's gravity the Sun has a gravitational force or effect on the Earth.
In Einsteinian gravity, the Sun effects spacetime which effects Earth.
Is that right?
If so, what's the big difference?
The curvature of space?
Mathematical equations?
Hmm!


=
MJA