I mean look at Mercury it is the closest planet to the sun yet it never gets closer to the sun , at least not that I know of , but why ?

its mass is very small , its radius is low , its density is some-what high , surface gravity is low , escape speed is low , surface rotation 59 solar days

so what are the physical dynamics , that allow it not to spin into the sun ?

now one would say gravity

hmm ... but at the point of where Mercury is , relative to the sun , that Mercury would have NO chance of over coming the gravity of the sun

or is Mercury actually getting closer to the sun ? not so far , at least not that I'm aware of

the sun causes a bulge on Mercury and this bulge always faces the sun

so in reality is there a push and pull between Mercury and the Sun

where the Sun is actually pushing Mercury away but at the same-time trying to draw it in

explained by geometry but the physical dynamics between the two that has not as of yet been identified , specificly

I proved this on another thread but space can not be nothing. here is a proof.

If space is nothing except the distance between objects
And the universe is expanding in sections faster than the speed of light.
Then there are two objects moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light.
This is not allowed by SR or GR

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

so perhaps some conclusions can be derived from my above posts

1) gravity is not as strong as we have thought

2) geometry does not explain fully , everything . it just explains the now and angles

3) the physical dynamics of things is yet to be explained , fully . which is the essence of the geometry calculated

all you have shown is that space has Energy/ Matter within space in order to prove what your suggesting

imagine a pure vaccum where no energy/matter is present

now figure out how you can grasp and take hold of that space

create a magnetic field through it.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

but a magnetic field is a form of energy

and there is no proof that space has any properties associated with it , magnetic or any other kind

space is just space

tommac

devise an experiment

create a pure vaccum in a container ( and this container is not at all affected by any magnetic field )

now introduce a strong magnetic field of any kind

now is the space within this container affected by the magnetic field ? in any way ?

Yes it has a magnetic field.
How about temp also?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Do you really not know?

So we are considering two options here:

1) The theory of GR is applicable to this scenario, and not only predicted the phenomena, but also predicted the actual numerical value of the deflection prior to any observation.

2) The phenomena is described by some other theory (yours), which is so far unable to even correctly derive any numerical value, nevermind being able to predict the value before the measurement was taken.

On balance, which of these two options do you believe is most likely to be correct.

niether ( just kidding !! )

look , while Einstien used the mathematics of geometry to predict this or that behaviour by planets , this tells us nothing , of the physical dynamics which caused this behaviour in the first place which is my point

look space-time was invented in the context of geometric mathematics and was not meant to explain any of the physical dynamics between objects

this is understandable since in geometric mathematics both space and time can be expressed mathematically. what else did they have to go on really ?

space-time is the invention of mathematical geometry

therefore space-time has no understanding of the physical-dynamics between stars , planets , galaxies etc .

and therefore again space-time just touches the surface of what is really going on between any astronomical objects and therefore is an incomplete concept

So are you now saying that GR gives the mathematically correct description of gravity, including phenomena such as the deflection of starlight as it passes close to the Sun? Your contention is that we just haven't reached the point where we understand why it really works. Is that correct? For example you believe that the deflection of starlight is due to "it is the energy/mass In the space from behind the sun , given off by the sun", even though the GR treatment does not include any energy/mass "given off" by the Sun.

yes and no

gravity , GR does not give an accurate description of gravity because like the example I gave , in the case of mercury , it seems that the gravity of the sun is far weaker then expected for its mass . the gravity of the sun should swallow mercury but it doesn't , why ? in physical dynamic terms

the deflection of starlight from behind while correct , because of space-time , is not an accurate description of what is really going on

look , geometric mathematics sees actions in terms of geometry , but not in terms of the physical dynamics , of the light from a star from the behind the sun , the interactions with the suns energy and atmosphere it falls short




yes

and not only from behind the sun also at the suns polar regions

No, it shouldn't. Mercury is orbiting the sun. It does not fall into the sun because it is in orbit. Because the sun's gravity is quite high, the required speed to maintain an orbit is quite high as well, but that does not mean that the sun should swallow it. Do you know how an orbit works?

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

so the suns gravity is " quite high " the required speed to maintain an orbit is high

so mercury has a high speed orbit enough to counter the suns gravity ?

Yep. It has an orbital velocity of about 48 km/s

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

so you figure its enough why ?

why can't we think that the velocity is because as it gets closer to the sun , the velocity increases ?