Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Thought, I Thought, A Thought Experiment.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Duane Eddy on April 9, 2003 19:37:43 UTC

You said:
A thought experiment is not a test of an idea. It's an exercise in reasoning.

I disagree, a thought experiment is a test of an idea.

You said:
I think there was a fatal flaw in the elevator t. e. I don't have a viable hypothesis about gravity yet.

You are correct. If you wish to talk about this topic send me a post.

You said:
Successful predictions aren't always proof of the validity of an hypothesis.

True but they are proof that part of the hypothesis is true and they are a lot more fun then unsuccessful predictions.

You said: Gravitational curvature of space and materiality of light both predict alteration of the path of light in a gravitational field.

Yes, so which causes which?

The principle argument against substantial light are the interference patterns produced by the single and double slot experiments. These patterns would be produced by a stream of electron-positron pairs moving like a bola. For a long time I thought this system would predict that an electric field would depolarize light, then I discovered that this was the principle of the Kerr cell. Doesn't mean much to predict the past. I still prefer this system because it doesn't require space to curve.

This is very good, but you have a lot of disconnected parts.
A thought experiment starts by writing down your assumptions.

I will give you a start:
My mind reading skills are somewhat faulty so don’t expect this to be perfect.

1. Wave properties can be defined with particle theory models.
2. Properties of curved space can be defined with particle theory models.
3. Einstein’s model of the elevator, gravity and acceleration is flawed but can be corrected.
4. There is a basic “space” material which does not “curve” but conveys particles.
5. Gravity and charge is transmitted by particle transfer.

How would you change these?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins