Quantums Grand Theory

[Albersawa]

Weight is your measurement with a scale, but rest mass does not change. Astronauts were able to carefully grab hold of a one or two ton satellite which was slowly rotating. This required application of considerable force to absorb the angular momentum of this mass. It may be weightless but will crush you if it comes at you.

[Steve_Miller]

And this is gonna happen when I approach being on the earth. Right.

[Albersawa]

I do not understand your answer, S. Miller. Consider a smooth ice rink and a mass of, say, a ton which slides effortlessly on the ice once given momentum. (An auto with bad tires). If you have cleats on your shoes you have traction on the ice and can slowly push on this mass. Let's say you push for thirty seconds and get this mass moving at three miles per hour. Now imagine the theorist you most dislike standing between this approaching mass and the wall. If it was pushed with a force of fifty pounds exerted over thirty seconds, the mass will considerably crush the opposing force unless they can exert, say, five hundred pounds over three seconds. I am not equal to it.

[Steve_Miller]

In your sample this is a little bit different. The ton you slide is connected to the earth, right?
You, yourself, are connected to earth. The ton as I think has not weight linked to the effect
to go out from the ton. Some specific case might be you tilting the ton till it goes down.

At this moment the ton had have weight. My previous answer might not have been such a
good one cause the satellite may have some self motion made possible by the conditions in
which it was found. But it was not connected to earth distinguished with that ton. Thus, the
effect of a free fall and you sliding the ton on the ground to smash some target that also was
connectedto the soil (earth) might be different. Would you agree so far?

[Albersawa]

No. Mass is not changed and you experience it inertially. Weight is relative to a non-accelerating frame of reference.

[Steve_Miller]

So, than. We or you found something new. Conditions on earth are the same as
in space and object's free falling are equally as to put in some effort shoving
tons over ice? Thus, the separation in several multiple energies (potential, kinetic..)
isn`t valid?

One thing I found but is strange. The natural fact that objects on earth do fall if
the are not connected to earth until they have got to that status in some way,
being connected to earth, was slightly different than soaring in space, as I think. And
there was no doubt to me that it is different in fact if those images, information are
true.

The other thing was, everyone else I know would wear some normal shoes but
tilt the ton an roll it. It`s much more easier that way. By the way shoving the ton is
not as natural as the free falling of object's, also. This are complete other situations.
The first is equal ever, the second dependent on who does it in which way.

Steve

[Albersawa]

If my numbers are correct, the one-ton mass will get a speed of 24 feet/sec, more than I estimated (about 14 miles/hr). The astronaut trying to snare the satellite would be smushed if the shuttle pilot misjudged and was still approaching the satellite at such a speed. The shuttle won't be looking too good, either.

[Steve_Miller]

But an other sample. Let's assume we were a bit more in deep space
not to closed to earth or any other planet that even accidentally could
move (just a experimental suppose), would not anything remain where
it was and not start moving (falling) itself, as on earth?

Or was this standstill just an illusion cause of the missing of a back-
ground to compare it to?

Also the image of the astronauts in mind, being soaring free to each
direction in space and not to have contact to the shuttle at all.

Or is it 'Capricon' (the movie) like were one will be late to ones funeral?

Steve

[Albersawa]

Good example, to see the physics removed from strong local fields. If the one-ton mass is approaching me because my pilot did not fire braking rockets sufficiently, I will be dead and you will have a mess to clean up!

[Albersawa]

We are coming close to seeing the profound nature of massiveness in two seemingly disparate manifestations. First, anything "massive", which to me only means energy localized and not going away, gives the local experience of inertia. Second, all such manifestation creates and feels the neutral gravitational field. SOMEHOW THESE ARE THE SAME.

[Steve_Miller]

Didn't Einstein fail right there, proving electromagnetic field and gravitational field a
cosmic unit (I think I have got you wrong, meaning the ton!?), and, for the reason
he failed couldn't we consider, and do we probably have to consider these fields
not to be (existent), cause any other mistake has been made already? This, as I
think I do know will explain a lot. Specifically knowing about the true nature of the
universe today.

By the way, I also will be dead some day. This but doesn't frighten me. It's the
more the normal, logical completion of the begin, I would say.

Steve

[Albersawa]

I think he succeeded here. Electromagnetic energy has respectable Lorentz tranforms which is why a fast-moving particle is experienced as a flattened pancake. In the general theory of gravitation the left-hand side is a tensor expression for the stretching of space-time, while the RHS has source terms that include mass densities, pressure energetics, and also pure E&M field, the Minkowski tensor.

[Steve_Miller]

I just can repeat here again, I do think he has been the best physicist of all times
if there was that competition possible, but he was cause he was wrong. I, for myself,
did always using data only that really were reliable in a way I would have known about
them cause I have had an impression of them. When Einstein did talk about space time
where could he have know about space as space travel wasn't done while he lived. This goes
on and on.

Steve

[Albersawa]

What did he need to know?

[Steve_Miller]

Good question. What we all still need to know. We all have not been in space yet and have no idea.

We but didn't talk about we don't know in a way we were late yet.

Steve