# Graviational SPACE As Plane Waves

Author: mustardness

## Posts

Total: 46
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3

....."In this case, geometrically speaking, space-time turns from a Riemannian..."

In regards to the above I say-----i.e. positive shaped (  ) curved { geodesic } space

......"space envisaged by the General Relativity (GR) into a generalized affine - metrical space. Respective gravitational field equations that generalize Einstein's equations show that torsion and nonmetricity can also spread in the form of waves (in particular plane waves at a great distance from wave sources).".........

Plane waves? A plane is 2D ex triangle or square plane polygons define a planes area.  So not yet sure what "plane waves" is exactly. I envision them meaning that we take for example, a quasi-wave-linear, 2D sine-wave ---peaks and troughs /\/\/\/---  and are able to express that information on a 2D plane ergo no peaks and troughs but still some kind of torsion i.e. to me this means the plane is twisted yet still plane-like.

Here is  possible approximation of what their math does not give an image of. Again, I'm certainly no mathematician and people likes us need a visual to make sense so what a mathematician is saying, with complex non visual maths.

Or a twisted plane? Does that mean both positive and negative curvature?
Mobieus? Torus?

The cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron via Fullers jitterbug;

1} contracts-expands,

2} torques/twists,

3} spins,

4} inside-outs,

5} has positive ( ) convex shape, and,

6} transforms into negative )(  concave shape aka saddle shape,

7} a 2D wave plane i.e. rippled { peaks and troughs } complex octagon,

8} hexagonal 2D plane with perpendicular triangular tail wing ergo __/\

9} 2D set of four triangles ---double-valenced/bonded,

10} single triangle ---octa-valenced/bonded set of triangles---

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
So not yet sure what "plane waves" is exactly
They are simply wave fronts that propagate parallel in the direction of travel, infinitely. Electromagnetic waves are plane waves.
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3
-->
@Goldtop
Thanks Goldtop.

Electric sine-wave, --singular---  is planar.

Magnetic sine-wave ---singular--- is planar.

Electro-magenetic sine-wave set --two-- is two planar sine-waves perpendicular to each other, as an intergral set, that defines quanta as phototn{s}.

All other quanta ex electron, proton, quark, neutrino etc have only single, planar sine-wave?

Are the any other entities, other that photon{s} that composed of two sine-waves at 90 degrees to each other?

Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@mustardness
Do you know that gravity is a lie?
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
Do you know that gravity is a lie?

Prove it. You'll need to show General Relativity is false or show it's accurate effects by other means? Those would include gravitational lensing, curvature of space and the shape of every large object in the universe. Go!
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
2
2
4
-->
Do you know that gravity is a lie?
I wish you hadn't said that. Now I keep floating out of my chair, and objects I drop just hang in midair.

Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
2
1
5
-->
If the force acting between massive objects is a lie, what force is acting "downwards", requiring an upward reactive force to not sink into the earth?

Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Stronn
@Plisken
Density.

Why do denser things fall and less dense things rise? The why to that would be like why is anything what it is.

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
Density.

Why do denser things fall and less dense things rise?

Because of gravity.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Goldtop
I'm sure. So why do larger objects not resist falling due to their own gravitational field in the way the moon resist being pulled into Earth supposedly?

Why doesn't a huge mountain pull something towards it, diagonally instead of letting you fall down vertically regardless of proximity to the mountain and the ground below?

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
Gravity is an incredibly weak force unless there are massive amount of matter, such as a planet. The overall effect of gravity on a planetary scale overrides any effects from a mountain. That said, if the mountain were out in free space, then we could measure gravitational effects from it.
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3
1} we have attractive via negative - { \/\/\ } and +{ /\/\/ } positive charge { spin? } or inside-out?

2} negative { saddle } shaped )( geodesic SPACE and positive shaped (  ) geodesic SPACE

3} we have one-sided inversion of egg via fertilzation and we have 2-sided inversion of toroidal, geodesic SPACE via { what? } at  peak of negative and positive curvature

4} attractive
.....4a} gravity,
......4b} gluons { sub-nuclear strong force }
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
2
1
5
-->
Density is not a measure of force.  It is the amount of mass per unit volume.  Differences in density do not necessarily indicate whether objects will move at all.  If an object is static it requires force to move.  You'll have to be more specific in your question.

Every time you step on a bathroom scale it will read out the amount of force being exerted at the point of contact.
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
2
1
5
-->
Mountains are relatively small, like geological pimples.  Gravity is the force that keeps the moon from zinging off into space.  It is in tension (spin a ball on a string).  Gravity also explains why we have predictable tides based on the position of the moon.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Plisken
But what stops the moon falling into Earth? :)

Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Plisken
I understand that weight exists. Gravity doesn't.
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
But what stops the moon falling into Earth? :)
Acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity, a property of matter, which causes the acceleration to create curved lines through space called geodesics. The moon is going in a straight line as far as its concerned, however the path (geodesic) it's taking through space has been curved into what is called an orbit.

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
I understand that weight exists. Gravity doesn't.
Without gravity, there is no such thing as weight.

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
So why do larger objects not resist falling due to their own gravitational field in the way the moon resist being pulled into Earth supposedly?

Both the earth and the moon have gravitational fields, but since the Earth is much larger, it's gravity will dominate, the effects being that now we observe only one side of the moon, for example. The moon gravitational effects can be observed in daily tidal waves on ocean shores. In classical mechanics, this is referred to as the Two Body Problem if you want to see the math.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Goldtop
Weight doesn't require gravity.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Goldtop
Why is the Moon not pulled into Earth? Because apparently it is big and dense enough to have its own gravitational field but no matter how close you are to massive skyscrapers, mountains or any such objects on Earth you don't get the slightest 'pull' from them nor to they even slightly resist the 'pull' of earth and would smash unbelievably hard and fast if you lifted them up and dropped them.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Goldtop
Acceleration is to do with why it's spinning but why isn't it spiralling into Earth?

Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
1.) The moon is being pulled into the earth. That’s why we see it moving around us and not fly off into space.

2.) Mountains pull objects towards them. It’s the 3rd most famous gravitational experiment.

3.) google “orbit”, if you have any specific questions on the maths, what it means or how it works: I will be happy to answer. As of now, I suspect you’re acting deliberately ignorant as a rhetorical ploy - a common technique amongst woo peddlers and buffoons. Act ignorant, ignore what people say, and just ask meaningless question after meaningless question.

Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I am interested in 2, please give me links and explanations. I believe you to be lying.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
3 is irrelevant to me, what you perceive me as is your burden to bare.
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
Mountains pulling objects:

Why the moon doesn’t crash into the Earth: the moon is constantly falling towards the earth. The moon is also has speed, which means it moves parallel to the earth as it falls, it’s speed is just fast enough that the rate at which it’s accelerated towards the earth is the same as the rate the earth curves away from it. It is called “an orbit”:

Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Aside from the easy flat-earter-type reaction to what you have given me of 'they're lying and paid-off or blackmailed' which I don't doubt is true to an extent and that the reason the expedition to Venus was underfunded and magically they decided to distract from why that project was cancelled by funding this with the money meant for that (it explicitly says it on the Wiki page for some strange reason).

What I am reading is that even Newton himself was immediately ready to scapegoat a lack of detectable deflection (implying he himself being prepared for negative results and saying 'but trust me it's just because the mountain is too small'). Aside from this, it appears the a ton of excuses like weather conditions and insignificance of the results which at best produced 50% deflection coupled with the fact that they altered how they interpreted the results based on accounting for Earth's curvature distorting what they see makes me wonder just what exactly these results prove and why this is never ever mentioned as proof of gravity in modern times as if to push it aside and prevent people on the flat-earth side looking into the details of it. Sorry, but I genuinely read it in in-depth and am not convinced, if anything I'm confused at the following:

They seem to have only proven that the Earth is far denser (and therefore more powerful at pulling things down versus things like the mountain pulling it side-ways) than they previously thought. This again adds to my idea that everything runs on density and nothing but. Whatever this 'arc-scale' was I want to know exactly how much their 'compensating for the assumed curvature of the Earth' factored into their apparent observing of any pulling from the mountain in the first place.
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
Okay awesome: so you’re specifically rejecting all facts that disagree with you. Good to know.

Mountains have been repeatedly shown to deflect pendulums, and the plum line. You appear to be confusing them accounting for the earth’s curvature when trying to work out where stars are (which is part of the basis of the experiment), with some systematic error. Of course, you don’t state what that error is, how t works, or why anything they did was wrong, incorrect or unscientific.

As I said, you’re just rejecting it out of hand without any real reason.
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Which facts am I rejecting?
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Can you explain how much the 'factored in curvature of the Earth' is involved in determining the observed 'pull'?