Johnny5

Before we get into this discussion any deeper, please answer one question of mine first. Are inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalent?

That I do not know, because I do not as of yet, have a formula for supergravitational force. Martin tells me that a quantum theory of gravity may be soon in coming. Perhaps that's what I need. I don't think that gravity depends upon your frame of reference though. I have no reason to think such a thing.

If you really want to talk about evolution mathematically, you need to turn evolutionary biology into a deductive science. You need clear definitions, a few axioms, some undefined terms, and so on.

Let me ask you a direct question. Is it possible to accelerate without feeling a force gradient within yourself?

You cannot feel an acceleration, you feel a force.

Yes. The only reason I say yes, is because rest mass is subject to gravity, and relativistic mass depends on that.

Vlamir, you are all over the place.

Your exact question is "how do you find the uncertainty of curvature of space in some region of space?". I told you I don't know how to answer it. But to give you some math to look at' date=' and have criticized, I can do this: [b']Time/energy uncertainty relation[/b] [math] \Delta E \Delta t \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] I've not derived the relation, perhaps someone else can. At any rate, you can let E denote the relativistic energy of something, and t denotes the time coordinate of some frame of reference. Let E = Mc^2. Then we have this: [math] \Delta Mc^2 \Delta t \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] And of course c is a temporal constant of nature (it's certaintly nonzero), hence we can divide both sides of the statement above, to obtain the following new statement, which will have the same truth value as the previous one: [math] \Delta M \Delta t \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2c^2} [/math] I would translate this as follows: "The product of the uncertainty in the inertia of some object, multiplied by the uncertainty in the time coordinate of the reference frame in which that object is having its inertia measured, is greater than or equal to Planck's constant of nature, divided by two c squared, where c has been defined to be a speed of 299792458 meters per second. The relation I just obtained, is a very peculiar one, and I don't see how to answer your question using it. I shall try something else. Position/momentum uncertainty relation [math] \Delta x \Delta p \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] In the statement above, x denotes the position of the center of inertia of something, and p denotes the momentum of that object in some reference frame. Classically, the momentum p of an object, is defined to be the product of that things inertia m, and its speed v in a frame. So we have: [math] \Delta x \Delta (Mv) \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] For something whose (nonzero) mass is constant in time (and can have no measured uncertainty), we can do this: [math] M \Delta x \Delta v \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] Dividing both sides by M, we have: [math] \Delta x \Delta v \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2M} [/math] Let the center of inertia, of the object of mass M be constrained to be moving on the positive x axis for some reason. Then the instantaneous speed v, of the center of mass of this thing, can be written as: [math] v = \frac{dx}{dt} [/MATH] So we now have this: [math] \Delta x \Delta (\frac{dx}{dt} ) \underline > \frac{\hbar}{2M} [/math] Now, consider what the Delta symbol above is. The uncertainty of a mathematical quantity Q is defined as follows: [math] \Delta Q = <Q^2> - <Q>^2 [/math] Where <Q> is the expectation value of Q, for example. Now, you need to know whether Q is a continuous variable, or a discrete variable, because you are going to need either a probability mass function, or a probability distribution function to go any further. Of course we can go further if we make certain assumptions, using the wavefunction of quantum mechanics, but this question is far from being answered. What I wanted to do was eliminate uncertainty of time, by mixing the two uncertainty principles together. They are really just coming from the same set of assumptions anyways, so that you could do that. I will stop here for now. Oh for what its worth, if the body was moving in a straight line at a constant speed, your math would take you in one direction. If the particles path were curved, it would take you in another. As for the reason the path is curved, there is where you would insert the idea that the space is curved. Proper analysis is going to take you into probability theory, and you will encounter many questions whose answer you don't know.

I read that article Vlamir, i found it interesting. Who are the authors, and what do they mean by an electric wind? I was just talking to someone yesterday, who spoke about electric wind, blowing at the speed of light. I see that you have their picture as your Avatar.

Swanson, can you be more specific about the proper conditions. You mentioned that there would be no clear vibration frequency. My question is this. Is one of the conditions that the object have an oscillatory and rapid temperature change? Rapid expansion and contraction kind of thing?

What about, a vacuum filled with a sea of particles something like this, some kind of particle web, like a spider web or something like that. Then its not the sun curving the geometry of space, which makes the earth follow its path around the sun, instead the sun is compressing the particles, and the earth is moving through a stream, taking the path of least resistance. i am just trying to come up with some explanation other than a curved vacuum. So that what Einstein viewed as a warping of space, was more like umm, our ocean, and solid objects creating currents, and density changes, something like a medium. The universe cannot all be empty vacuum, and it cannot all be solid matter. One problem which I have always had, is figuring out how two particles, separated by pure vacuum exert a force upon one another. Action at a distance. Yet it must be possible on some level. I wish someone else had the answer, its easier to learn what someone else knows, than to figure things out for yourself. The fundamental difference between being in the ocean, and being in outer space, is that i can swim under the water, but the same body movements in space, wouldnt get me anywhere. Doesn't anyone have another alternative to GR, or at least an alternative to how GR is interpreted??? Even if I understood the math, I would still have conceptual problems with it. There are two models, one of which is probably right. In between planets and galaxies and such, is pure vacuum, and gravitational force is action at a distance. The other is that the region of space in between two planets isn't really vacuum, instead its just matter as well, only extremely less dense matter. And if you zoom in on it, at some level you will find regions of true pure vacuum.

Even if what you say were true, you could not deduce it logically, nor is it inferrable emprically, so the fact would be forever unverifiable by you, or alternatively forever unknowable by you. At any rate, what you said is not fact.

Space can't end. The simplest model of space is this. Space is infinite in all directions. Space is a true vacuum. It has no inertia. It has no electrical impedance. It's temperature is absolute zero. Somewhere in it, is the center of mass of the universe. Space cannot stretch, it cannot bend, it cannot expand, it cannot have properties. And lastly, it is three dimensional. In over two thousand years there hasn't been a simpler model.

What does that mean exactly, that it applies only to local coordinates?

I thought you meant something like that. I'm not convinced that gravity warps space, so I am not the one to answer that.

And thank you too swansont for everything. You may not realize how much of a help you have been, but you have. Your posts are some of the ones I read closely. Just wanted to say thanks