From: g.scholten@gmx.de   
      
   Y Porat wrote:   
      
   >>> so we see that   
   >>> for gravity we need 2 **active physical entities*   
   >>   
   >> Which entities do you mean?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> and mass becomes  an  ** active physical entity   
   >>> NOT A PASSIVE PHYSICAL ENTITY ANY MORE ??!!   
   >>> ie   
   >>> producing forces !....   
   >>   
   >> Already Newton considered mass as producing gravitational forces, so in   
   >> that sense, mass has always been considered as "active".   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> so how'suddenly ' active ??!!    by what ??   
   >>> while 'we....'see' in mass (until now)   
   >>> just a passive physical  entity ??!!   
   >>   
   >> Following you definition of "active", we have never seen a passive   
   >> entity in mass.   
   >   
   >   
   > ======================   
   > at the beginning   
   > a request from the moderator!!   
   >   
   > please dont block me   
   >   
   > because Scholten   
      
   When addressing someone else, one usually uses either the full name or   
   the first name alone, but not the last name alone.   
      
   > asked me a question   
   > and  in order to be 'fair '' (discussion   
   >   i have to answer !!   
   >   
   > Scolten asked me   
   > ''which  entity i mean ''   
   > so   
   >   
   > i claimed  that in order to get gravity   
   > we need  at  least 2 masses'   
   > is it not   obvious ?!   
      
   It is trivial that any kind of interaction, no matter if gravitational,   
   electromagnetic or other, requires at least two partners that interact.   
   That can be e.g. two celestial bodies or two particles.   
      
   This is that trivial that we do not need dark matter consideration to   
   examine it.   
      
   > 2   
   > until  now mass is considered as a passive physical entity ]   
      
   By whom?   
      
   > Newton took it as active in distance   
   >   he took it as a n assumption   
   > he even formulated the gravitation force in distance !!!!   
   >   
   > but never explain ***how/why  it is done !!!   
   > he took it as an assumption   
      
   We should consider more in detail what "explain" means. To explain a   
   phenomenon means to derive it from another phenomenon, that is more   
   fundamental, more general and simpler. This second phenomenon itself is   
   not explained, it is just taken as an assumption, to explain the first   
   phonomenon. So, explaining always implies that there is something that   
   is not explained itself, but applies as explaination for other things.   
      
   So, in Newtonian theory of gravity, the action at a distance is   
   something fundamental, it is used to explain other things, e.g. why   
   apples fall down from trees, but is not explained itself. This is not a   
   lack of Newtonian theory: assume Newton would explain the action at a   
   distance, i.e. derive from some more fundamental principle, then this   
   more fundamental principle had to be considered as fundamental, i.e. had   
   to be taken as an assumption instead, as an assumption that would not be   
   explained itself.   
      
   This would make sense if this principle would be more general and   
   simpler than the principle of action at a distance, however, action at a   
   distance is already a very general and simple principle. Therefore, it   
   would be hard to find a more general and simpler principle.   
      
   > Einstein tried to explain it   
   > by   
   > ''curved space'   
   >   
   > [[Mod. note -- Actually curved *spacetime*. -- jt]]   
   >   
   > but never explained   
   > how is that curved space   
   > is acting   
   > ONLY** WHILE MASS IS THERE !!!!   
   > AND HOW MASS IS REACTING   
   > IN ''COOPERATION WITH  SPACE ??   
   > TO   MAKE   
   > is for instance   
   >   
   > space is pushing mass  to move is   
   > in curved lines ??   
   > and what are the **physics tools**cpace ''has'   
   > or to force  mass to move  thet way   
   > it moves  or   
   > to**do** anything ??!!   
      
   In General Relativity (GR), the Newtonian concept of action at a   
   distance must be discarded because it is incompatible with the insight   
   from Special Relativity (SR) that signals cannot propagate faster than   
   light. So, when formulating GR, Einstein did not intend to explain   
   Newtons action at a distance, but to replace it by a different concept   
   that is compatible with limited speed for signal propagation.   
      
   One such concept that was already known to Einstein is the field theory   
   from Maxwellian Electrodynamics. Maxwell assumed that at every point   
   (x,y,z) in space, there is an electric field E(x,y,z) and a magnetic   
   field B(x,y,z), and that the electric and magnetic field at a given   
   point in space is interacting with the electric and magnetic field at   
   the neighbour points, and with charge-carrying particles at the same   
   point in space.   
      
   What Einstein did in GR was to combine this field concept with the   
   concept of curved spacetime. According to GR, free-falling particles are   
   not accelerated by a gravitational force the would make them move in   
   non-straight lines, but follow geodesic (most straight) lines in   
   spacetime, and with spacetime being curved, this can e.g. make particles   
   that initially move apart from each other meet again, instead of moving   
   apart forever.   
      
   Now, the combination with field theory is that the curvature of   
   spacetime is dynamic, i.e. it is influenced by the particles that live   
   in spacetime. Imagine a particle at some position (x,y,z) in space. This   
   particles influences the curvature of spacetime at the same point, which   
   then influences the curvature of spacetime at the neighbour points, and   
   so on.   
      
   So, the tool spacetime has to make particles move the way they move is   
   that free-falling particles follow geodesic lines in spacetime and that   
   spacetime is curved. The tool that make free-falling particles follow   
   geodesic lines is not explained by GR, it is a fundamental principle,   
   just like non-relevativistic physics does not explain why particle   
   follow straight lines if they are not affected by forces, but considers   
   it a fundamental principle (Newton's first law).   
      
   And the tool that makes particles influence the curvature of spacetime   
   and the curvature of spacetime at one point influence the curvature at   
   the neighbour points, is not explained in GR, too, but is assumed as a   
   fundamental principle.   
      
   > 2   
   > i had a theory that explain it   
   > (all the above )   
   > in some basic fundamental tiny particle   
   > that move ''naturally' in a curved line   
   > and   
   > that stems!! out of mass !!!!!   
      
   So, your theory makes two fundamental assumptions:   
      
   1) There is a tiny particle that moves "naturally" in a curved line   
      
   2) That particle stems out of mass   
      
   Your theory does not in any way explain   
      
   - why the particle exists   
   - why it moves "naturally" in a curved line   
   - why it stems out of mass   
      
   So, compared to Newtonian theory and GR, you just replace Newton's   
   assumption of a action at a distance and Einstein's assumption of curved   
   spacetime by yet another assumption. So, your theory does not in any way   
   yield a better explaination for gravity that Newtonian theory or GR do.   
      
   Or in your own words: your theory does not in any way explain what are   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)