A Rhetorical Question from johnreed
20 views
Skip to first unread message
johnlawrencereedjr
May 7, 2011, 2:38:37 AM5/7/11
to Epistemology
Consider a pure element. On a balance scale, imagine that we can place
one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard calibrated mass in the
other pan. We can (theoretically) place one atom at a time in one pan
until it is balanced against the standard mass in the other pan. When
we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the standard mass we
feel weight. We feel the combination [mg] at location [g]
We feel at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass) of the
number of atoms in the pure object pan at that location. In this
example the balance scale compares the resistance of a quantity of
atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in mass
units. Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the
planet attractor.
Is each atom in the calibrated object pan also uniformly acted upon by
the planet attractor? In other words; Is this uniform action on each
atom a consequence of each atom being identical in the pure object? Or
is it a consequence of the planet attractor’s uniform action on atoms
in general? The number of atoms in each pan need not be the same.
In the pure atom pan we are measuring the cumulative resistance of the
number of atoms. Without digressing into the reason we use the
conserved unit “mass” in the first place, in this case we call this
“mass” because we are measuring the cumulative comparative resistance
of atoms in the pure object pan against the object in the pan
calibrated in mass units.
Is the mass of the calibrated object also the cumulative resistance of
the atoms in that object? Do all objects fall at the same rate?
Answer by critic:
> instead of talking of the "cumulative resistance" you should talk of
> the total energy. It is improper to talk about "resistance" wrt to gravitation. In physics "resistance" has a completely different meaning. Speak instead of gravitational acceleration or even gravitational force (if you must).
Jr writes> I am trying to separate our subjective interpretation of
physical phenomena from the objective events in the universe. Our
generalization of Force [F] (as something we feel), to the inanimate
universe in general, as something it feels, is quite absurd on the
face.
However wrt the use of the term “resistance”:
Begin quote
"Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its
acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the
body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions
lead
to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an
astonishing
fact."
End quote: Albert Einstein
Jr writes> .If we define mass [m] as a cumulative resistance of atoms
(amount of matter) the “astonishing” aspect of the equivalence between
inertia and weight evaporates.
We can eliminate the “uniform gravitational field” by a planet’s
uniform attractive action on atoms and parts of atoms. It is a major
conceptual change where the functional existing mathematics is
retained. Which provides a segue into an understanding of an
electromagnetic universe that we as inertial objects have to date
defined in quantities of that universe that we feel and so work
against. My rhetorical question here suggests that all objects fall at
the same rate. johnreed
one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard calibrated mass in the
other pan. We can (theoretically) place one atom at a time in one pan
until it is balanced against the standard mass in the other pan. When
we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the standard mass we
feel weight. We feel the combination [mg] at location [g]
We feel at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass) of the
number of atoms in the pure object pan at that location. In this
example the balance scale compares the resistance of a quantity of
atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in mass
units. Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the
planet attractor.
Is each atom in the calibrated object pan also uniformly acted upon by
the planet attractor? In other words; Is this uniform action on each
atom a consequence of each atom being identical in the pure object? Or
is it a consequence of the planet attractor’s uniform action on atoms
in general? The number of atoms in each pan need not be the same.
In the pure atom pan we are measuring the cumulative resistance of the
number of atoms. Without digressing into the reason we use the
conserved unit “mass” in the first place, in this case we call this
“mass” because we are measuring the cumulative comparative resistance
of atoms in the pure object pan against the object in the pan
calibrated in mass units.
Is the mass of the calibrated object also the cumulative resistance of
the atoms in that object? Do all objects fall at the same rate?
Answer by critic:
> instead of talking of the "cumulative resistance" you should talk of
> the total energy. It is improper to talk about "resistance" wrt to gravitation. In physics "resistance" has a completely different meaning. Speak instead of gravitational acceleration or even gravitational force (if you must).
Jr writes> I am trying to separate our subjective interpretation of
physical phenomena from the objective events in the universe. Our
generalization of Force [F] (as something we feel), to the inanimate
universe in general, as something it feels, is quite absurd on the
face.
However wrt the use of the term “resistance”:
Begin quote
"Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its
acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the
body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions
lead
to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an
astonishing
fact."
End quote: Albert Einstein
Jr writes> .If we define mass [m] as a cumulative resistance of atoms
(amount of matter) the “astonishing” aspect of the equivalence between
inertia and weight evaporates.
We can eliminate the “uniform gravitational field” by a planet’s
uniform attractive action on atoms and parts of atoms. It is a major
conceptual change where the functional existing mathematics is
retained. Which provides a segue into an understanding of an
electromagnetic universe that we as inertial objects have to date
defined in quantities of that universe that we feel and so work
against. My rhetorical question here suggests that all objects fall at
the same rate. johnreed
nominal9
May 11, 2011, 1:04:44 PM5/11/11
to Epistemology
What about atoms of HELIUM?....HYDROGEN...LIGHTER THAN AIR?
Where are your "scales" located?
Smart-Ass....
How many atoms of helium would you have to pile into any conceivable
"pan" to balance a "pure" object....say consisting of a "mass" pound
of lead... Do "lighter than air" atoms "float" in a
vacuum?.....Vacuumed Compressed lighter than air elements could be
gathered in sufficient quantity to amount to any mass "weight" , I
suppose
Where are your "scales" located?
Smart-Ass....
How many atoms of helium would you have to pile into any conceivable
"pan" to balance a "pure" object....say consisting of a "mass" pound
of lead... Do "lighter than air" atoms "float" in a
vacuum?.....Vacuumed Compressed lighter than air elements could be
gathered in sufficient quantity to amount to any mass "weight" , I
suppose
nominal9
May 11, 2011, 1:05:38 PM5/11/11
to Epistemology
Lonnie Clay
May 11, 2011, 1:54:25 PM5/11/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Hehehe 76RPM - somebody pull out that bloody rag and wipe that grin off his face, notice he lost his handkerchief...
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:05:38 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:
Lonnie Courtney Clay
ps excuse ME for living it up, I am somewhat light hearted lately...
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:05:38 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:
the answer is 76
johnlawrencereedjr
May 11, 2011, 8:13:30 PM5/11/11
to Epistemology
On May 11, 10:04 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What about atoms of HELIUM?....HYDROGEN...LIGHTER THAN AIR?
> Where are your "scales" located?
> Smart-Ass....
made an important point.
> How many atoms of helium would you have to pile into any conceivable
> "pan" to balance a "pure" object....say consisting of a "mass" pound
> of lead...
will do nothing but what it was doing all along. The helium atom and
the lead atom will also be doing what they were doing all along away
from a source of attraction. On the other hand you can place a scale
under the sea at the sea floor and weigh lead and gold. Unfortunately
you can't weigh cork because it is lighter than the medium within
which you are weighing.
Do "lighter than air" atoms "float" in a
> vacuum?.....Vacuumed Compressed lighter than air elements could be
> gathered in sufficient quantity to amount to any mass "weight" , I
> suppose
nominal9
May 12, 2011, 10:09:07 AM5/12/11
to Epistemology
I'm just a lowly nominalist sort of unscientific cowboy I guess....
Now get along... little dogey,,,, HAR
dogie
do·gie [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies) or do·gy [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies)
or do·gey [ dṓgee ] (plural do·geys)
noun
Definition:
motherless calf: a calf with no mother
Now get along... little dogey,,,, HAR
dogie
do·gie [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies) or do·gy [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies)
or do·gey [ dṓgee ] (plural do·geys)
noun
Definition:
motherless calf: a calf with no mother
johnlawrencereedjr
May 14, 2011, 10:42:08 PM5/14/11
to Epistemology
archytas
May 15, 2011, 4:48:20 PM5/15/11
to Epistemology
The attempt to think differently is laudable JR - though I don't
follow it.
follow it.
johnlawrencereedjr
May 16, 2011, 11:39:04 PM5/16/11
to Epistemology
jr writes> Thanks. It grew on me. I'll try to be clearer. Have a good
time.
johnreed
time.
johnreed
nominal9
May 17, 2011, 7:32:22 PM5/17/11
to Epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_weight
On May 16, 11:39 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On May 16, 11:39 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
johnlawrencereedjr
May 18, 2011, 11:59:20 AM5/18/11
to Epistemology
I get redirected when I click on your URL.
jr
jr
nominal9
May 18, 2011, 12:54:32 PM5/18/11
to Epistemology
I did too... but finally got to the wikipedia sight when I waited for
it....
anyway... it's just a wiki entry... that contains among other info a
chart of the Periodic Table with atomic weights of elements..
I don't know science for much... but I'm wondering,,, don't atomic
weights (or the process of arriving at them) answer the point that you
are trying to make?
Maybe you can rephrase the issue or the theoretical problem in a
better way so that a "layperson" like me can better understand the
"unknown" part, the possible alternative solutions... be it in fact ,
theory... method... whatever... I like a good puzzle.
On May 18, 11:59 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
it....
anyway... it's just a wiki entry... that contains among other info a
chart of the Periodic Table with atomic weights of elements..
I don't know science for much... but I'm wondering,,, don't atomic
weights (or the process of arriving at them) answer the point that you
are trying to make?
Maybe you can rephrase the issue or the theoretical problem in a
better way so that a "layperson" like me can better understand the
"unknown" part, the possible alternative solutions... be it in fact ,
theory... method... whatever... I like a good puzzle.
On May 18, 11:59 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
johnlawrencereedjr
May 19, 2011, 3:22:16 AM5/19/11
to Epistemology
jr writes> I'll have to take some time with this to do it justice. I
will get back. Have a good time.
johnreed
will get back. Have a good time.
johnreed
johnlawrencereedjr
May 20, 2011, 4:38:08 AM5/20/11
to Epistemology
jr writes>
Humanity has been using a balance scale for more than 6000 years. Even
so humanity believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter
objects as little as 700 years ago. So for 5300 years mankind made use
of a tool that could not work if all objects did not fall at the same
rate regardless of their weight. Today this fact is not taken into
consideration. Instead we have Eotvos experiments to verify that yes
all objects do fall at the same rate. It still baffles much of
humanity that this is so. Including most physicists. Where the fact
that mass can be isolated on the balance scale proves that all objects
MUST fall at the same rate. It also shows why so called gravitational
mass is equivalent to inertial mass, where Einstein just up and
declared the equivalence as a principle. Which locked gravity in as a
fundamental controlling force of the universe.
Many would want to argue these points. Where we need only to think.
Aristotle was familiar with the balance scale. He used it to compare
the weights of things so it was easy to think that heavier objects
fall faster than lighter objects, even though if heavier objects fall
faster than lighter objects we could not use a balance scale to
isolate the quantity mass. In fact if heavier objects fall faster
than lighter objects we could not exist. I suspect that most
physicists today do not understand this simple bit of logic.
So I will open the discussion on this note. Just to see where we are
at. Many can figure this out just by having their coats pulled. Many
will deny it outright. It changes everything if what I say is fact.
If heavier objects fall faster this would mean that all we would have
to do when falling is hold someone’s hand to increase our rate of
falling. Our weight is felt only when we are pressed against the earth
or moving away from the earth. When we are falling toward the earth we
are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our
atoms. So we feel only air resistance. When we are accelerating away
from the earth we are acting against the attractive action on our
atoms so we feel a force. We call this force the pull of gravity and
think it acts on us, when we are the sole source of the force we feel.
I will continue if no arguments occur here. I will continue if
arguments are put forward. It is better that the arguments are put
forward as they occur. Have a good time.
johnreed
On May 19, 12:22 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
Humanity has been using a balance scale for more than 6000 years. Even
so humanity believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter
objects as little as 700 years ago. So for 5300 years mankind made use
of a tool that could not work if all objects did not fall at the same
rate regardless of their weight. Today this fact is not taken into
consideration. Instead we have Eotvos experiments to verify that yes
all objects do fall at the same rate. It still baffles much of
humanity that this is so. Including most physicists. Where the fact
that mass can be isolated on the balance scale proves that all objects
MUST fall at the same rate. It also shows why so called gravitational
mass is equivalent to inertial mass, where Einstein just up and
declared the equivalence as a principle. Which locked gravity in as a
fundamental controlling force of the universe.
Many would want to argue these points. Where we need only to think.
Aristotle was familiar with the balance scale. He used it to compare
the weights of things so it was easy to think that heavier objects
fall faster than lighter objects, even though if heavier objects fall
faster than lighter objects we could not use a balance scale to
isolate the quantity mass. In fact if heavier objects fall faster
than lighter objects we could not exist. I suspect that most
physicists today do not understand this simple bit of logic.
So I will open the discussion on this note. Just to see where we are
at. Many can figure this out just by having their coats pulled. Many
will deny it outright. It changes everything if what I say is fact.
If heavier objects fall faster this would mean that all we would have
to do when falling is hold someone’s hand to increase our rate of
falling. Our weight is felt only when we are pressed against the earth
or moving away from the earth. When we are falling toward the earth we
are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our
atoms. So we feel only air resistance. When we are accelerating away
from the earth we are acting against the attractive action on our
atoms so we feel a force. We call this force the pull of gravity and
think it acts on us, when we are the sole source of the force we feel.
I will continue if no arguments occur here. I will continue if
arguments are put forward. It is better that the arguments are put
forward as they occur. Have a good time.
johnreed
On May 19, 12:22 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com>
nominal9
May 20, 2011, 1:03:30 PM5/20/11
to Epistemology
When we are falling toward the earth we
are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our
atoms. .....
are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our
We call this force the pull of gravity and
think it acts on us, when we are the sole source of the force we
feel.
Earth is pulling our atoms.... versus....we are the sole source of the
force we feel"
which is it... is gravity in or from the Earth? Is gravity in or from
each one of Us (objects)?
is gravity some sort of interplay between various objects all of which
have "gravity but some of which have more gravity that (somehow
smaller or at least less "gravity heavy' than) others ?
>
> read more »
nominal9
May 20, 2011, 1:05:01 PM5/20/11
to Epistemology
Maybe "gravity heavy" is itself confusing....let me amend that to
"gravity strong".....
> ...
>
> read more »
"gravity strong".....
>
> read more »
johnlawrencereedjr
May 21, 2011, 2:32:33 AM5/21/11
to Epistemology
jr writes> What we feel is a Force we exert on a resistance to our
effort. The planet attractor acts on all atoms, not just the optimally
structured and arranged atoms we associate with electromagnetism. We
feel the attraction on our atoms as resistance and we call it gravity
and think it is acting on us (we think the force we feel is acting on
us instead of acting on our atoms where we feel the cumulative
resistance to the action on our atoms as we work against it). The
significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass
of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by
large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of
dynamically cored planets and stars in all cases.)
We feel electromagnetism generated by the optimally internally and
externally arranged atoms as magnetism when we hold a magnet near a
suitable object. The electricity that passes through our body, can
kill us as it structurally changes our atoms to enable the passage of
current. Gravity is the manifestation of the attraction on all atoms
however arranged.
Does this eliminate the contradiction so far. Note I am not asking you
to agree with me. Only want to know if the self contradiction is
elliminated.
Thanks.
johnreed
> ...
>
> read more »
effort. The planet attractor acts on all atoms, not just the optimally
structured and arranged atoms we associate with electromagnetism. We
feel the attraction on our atoms as resistance and we call it gravity
and think it is acting on us (we think the force we feel is acting on
us instead of acting on our atoms where we feel the cumulative
resistance to the action on our atoms as we work against it). The
significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass
of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by
large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of
dynamically cored planets and stars in all cases.)
We feel electromagnetism generated by the optimally internally and
externally arranged atoms as magnetism when we hold a magnet near a
suitable object. The electricity that passes through our body, can
kill us as it structurally changes our atoms to enable the passage of
current. Gravity is the manifestation of the attraction on all atoms
however arranged.
Does this eliminate the contradiction so far. Note I am not asking you
to agree with me. Only want to know if the self contradiction is
elliminated.
Thanks.
johnreed
>
> read more »
nominal9
May 23, 2011, 11:18:49 AM5/23/11
to Epistemology
The
significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass
of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by
large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of
dynamically cored planets and stars in all cases.) / jr
significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass
of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by
large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of
large aggregates of matter..... vs..... dynamically cored planets and
stars
I think I know the answer..... matter.... all aggregates of it whether
large or small....appear capable of generating some amount of
gravity... Am I right or wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
I seem to remember that "force"... can be separated into various
sorts... gravity...electromagnetic ... and nuclear...
then there are other "use" forces as applied in Physics....
Electromagnetic and nuclear forces appear to have been understood
enough to put them to certain "uses"....but gravity seems to remain
relatively unknown or un-understood....at least in its physical nature
if not in its effects....
Can you or your rhetorical question shed some insight into the
physical nature of gravity, jr?
>
> read more »
johnlawrencereedjr
May 26, 2011, 2:59:31 AM5/26/11
to Epistemology
jr writes
If you assume that an attraction called gravity exists between objects
in general, because you feel an attraction toward the planet that is
equal and opposite to the effort (Force) you apply… and if you want to
generalize the effort you apply to the entire inanimate universe as an
effort that acts on you by the inanimate universe, the universe can be
successfully negotiated in terms that you work against ie, Force
which is defined as the product [mass times gravitational
acceleration] or [mg]. Since the universe can be negotiated with these
concepts we have a pragmatic reason to insure that these concepts are
well taught and anything that contradicts the actual veracity of the
concepts must do so in an all inclusive manner.
The fact that you can lift a chunk of the planet say, a rock, and it
is equal and opposite to your effort and therefore equal and opposite
to the effort of the planet means that the planet acts on mass with
the effort you apply in all cases. Our convenient mathematical term
called mass [m] can be used quantitatively to account for this.
A fact that a planet exerts the precise amount of Force [mg] that
you exert to lift any part of the planet allows us to declare that our
effort is equal and opposite to the action of the planet. Joe’s
effort, Tom’s effort, your and my effort… all equal and opposite to
the effort of the planet. The planet just knows how to adjust to our
effort when we think that the planet acts on mass. But of course the
resistance must be equal and opposite to the effort we expend.
So let’s do some impact experiments in terms of the Force called
weight which is also called [mg] but becomes [ma] when working free of
the so called gravitational force with quantities like [mv] momentum..
[a] and [g] represent acceleration. [v] is velocity. [m] represents
mass.
What we know for certain about gravity is that it is a Force that we
feel. It’s magnitude [mg] depends on the product of the magnitude of
[m] which does not change with location [g] or [a] which do change
with location [g] or [a]. In the case of [g] an increase occurs until
it impacts with the planet. In the case of [a] a decrease occurs
absent a source of self power. Both an increase and a decrease in
speed or velocity change is regarded as acceleration.
I seem to remember that "force"... can be separated into various
sorts... gravity...electromagnetic ... and nuclear...
then there are other "use" forces as applied in Physics...
.
jr writes> Yes Force is a term we understand. A term we feel. Gravity
is something we feel and initiate in response to something that acts
on us. We understand electromagnetic force as a force that acts
between atoms. It was once believed that the atoms must be a certain
type with a certain ordered internal and external arrangement, to be
subject to or to generate electromagnetism. We have created plastic
that acts like magnets by modifying a quantity we call spin. Nuclear
Force has been demonstrated and no one doubts it’s existence. Force is
something we can feel in all cases. The question is: is the force we
feel a consequence of an applied Force an inanimate object feels?
When we lift an item is the planet exerting a force on mass that is
equal and opposite to the force we exert? Does this mysterious but
functional idea have to be correct? Or can there be another “logical”
explanation? One can ask why does the quantity mass work so well in
conjunction with velocity [v] and acceleration [a] and [g]?
We know that given a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate. A heavy
object falls no faster than a light object. On a balance scale it
takes more of the lighter objects to balance a heavier object. So we
are not balancing the falling part of the object which is [g]. All
objects do [g] at the same rate depending on location. The balance
scale it self is being acted on by [g] equivalently at location. So
what we are comparing is the mass of the objects on the balance scale.
How does weight figure here? The balance scale does not measure
weight. Weight changes with location but as you move the balance scale
around, you cannot detect this change. The balance scale will balance
the same items here or on the moon. But the weight will be heavier
here and easier for us to lift on the moon. What has changed is [g]
not [m]. [mg] weight has changed also but the balance scale will not
show this unless we are lifting the entire apparatus..
However we can weigh say 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen
anywhere and have the atomic weight, rather molecular weight of water
H2O. An amount of water of 1 atom has a mass of 18 which consists of 2
hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Hydrogen has a mass of 1 oxygen 16.
2 pounds of hydrogen + 16 pounds of oxygen will make 18 pounds of
water theoretically. Or 2 grams and 16 grams will make 18 grams
theoretically.
So when we measure these amounts on the balance scale we are measuring
gram atomic and gram molecular weights (mass) but the balance scale is
comparing atoms and molecules. Therefore the planet attractor is
acting on atoms and molecules.
Electromagnetic and nuclear forces appear to have been understood
enough to put them to certain "uses"....but gravity seems to remain
relatively unknown or un-understood....at least in its physical
nature
if not in its effects....
Can you or your rhetorical question shed some insight into the
physical nature of gravity, jr?
jr writes> It’s tuff. I can try. Been trying a long time. It just
boils down to the fact that what we feel is the cumulative sum of the
attraction on our atoms. The planet attractor acts on atoms. The
balance scale compares the relative mass of each atom on balance.
Feel free to tear everything I say apart. I do better that way. Have a
good time.
johnreed
> ...
>
> read more »
If you assume that an attraction called gravity exists between objects
in general, because you feel an attraction toward the planet that is
equal and opposite to the effort (Force) you apply… and if you want to
generalize the effort you apply to the entire inanimate universe as an
effort that acts on you by the inanimate universe, the universe can be
successfully negotiated in terms that you work against ie, Force
which is defined as the product [mass times gravitational
acceleration] or [mg]. Since the universe can be negotiated with these
concepts we have a pragmatic reason to insure that these concepts are
well taught and anything that contradicts the actual veracity of the
concepts must do so in an all inclusive manner.
The fact that you can lift a chunk of the planet say, a rock, and it
is equal and opposite to your effort and therefore equal and opposite
to the effort of the planet means that the planet acts on mass with
the effort you apply in all cases. Our convenient mathematical term
called mass [m] can be used quantitatively to account for this.
A fact that a planet exerts the precise amount of Force [mg] that
you exert to lift any part of the planet allows us to declare that our
effort is equal and opposite to the action of the planet. Joe’s
effort, Tom’s effort, your and my effort… all equal and opposite to
the effort of the planet. The planet just knows how to adjust to our
effort when we think that the planet acts on mass. But of course the
resistance must be equal and opposite to the effort we expend.
So let’s do some impact experiments in terms of the Force called
weight which is also called [mg] but becomes [ma] when working free of
the so called gravitational force with quantities like [mv] momentum..
[a] and [g] represent acceleration. [v] is velocity. [m] represents
mass.
What we know for certain about gravity is that it is a Force that we
feel. It’s magnitude [mg] depends on the product of the magnitude of
[m] which does not change with location [g] or [a] which do change
with location [g] or [a]. In the case of [g] an increase occurs until
it impacts with the planet. In the case of [a] a decrease occurs
absent a source of self power. Both an increase and a decrease in
speed or velocity change is regarded as acceleration.
I seem to remember that "force"... can be separated into various
sorts... gravity...electromagnetic ... and nuclear...
then there are other "use" forces as applied in Physics...
.
is something we feel and initiate in response to something that acts
on us. We understand electromagnetic force as a force that acts
between atoms. It was once believed that the atoms must be a certain
type with a certain ordered internal and external arrangement, to be
subject to or to generate electromagnetism. We have created plastic
that acts like magnets by modifying a quantity we call spin. Nuclear
Force has been demonstrated and no one doubts it’s existence. Force is
something we can feel in all cases. The question is: is the force we
feel a consequence of an applied Force an inanimate object feels?
When we lift an item is the planet exerting a force on mass that is
equal and opposite to the force we exert? Does this mysterious but
functional idea have to be correct? Or can there be another “logical”
explanation? One can ask why does the quantity mass work so well in
conjunction with velocity [v] and acceleration [a] and [g]?
We know that given a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate. A heavy
object falls no faster than a light object. On a balance scale it
takes more of the lighter objects to balance a heavier object. So we
are not balancing the falling part of the object which is [g]. All
objects do [g] at the same rate depending on location. The balance
scale it self is being acted on by [g] equivalently at location. So
what we are comparing is the mass of the objects on the balance scale.
How does weight figure here? The balance scale does not measure
weight. Weight changes with location but as you move the balance scale
around, you cannot detect this change. The balance scale will balance
the same items here or on the moon. But the weight will be heavier
here and easier for us to lift on the moon. What has changed is [g]
not [m]. [mg] weight has changed also but the balance scale will not
show this unless we are lifting the entire apparatus..
However we can weigh say 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen
anywhere and have the atomic weight, rather molecular weight of water
H2O. An amount of water of 1 atom has a mass of 18 which consists of 2
hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Hydrogen has a mass of 1 oxygen 16.
2 pounds of hydrogen + 16 pounds of oxygen will make 18 pounds of
water theoretically. Or 2 grams and 16 grams will make 18 grams
theoretically.
So when we measure these amounts on the balance scale we are measuring
gram atomic and gram molecular weights (mass) but the balance scale is
comparing atoms and molecules. Therefore the planet attractor is
acting on atoms and molecules.
Electromagnetic and nuclear forces appear to have been understood
enough to put them to certain "uses"....but gravity seems to remain
relatively unknown or un-understood....at least in its physical
nature
if not in its effects....
Can you or your rhetorical question shed some insight into the
physical nature of gravity, jr?
boils down to the fact that what we feel is the cumulative sum of the
attraction on our atoms. The planet attractor acts on atoms. The
balance scale compares the relative mass of each atom on balance.
Feel free to tear everything I say apart. I do better that way. Have a
good time.
johnreed
>
> read more »
nominal9
Jun 2, 2011, 10:45:53 AM6/2/11
to Epistemology
I have nothing to tear away, really.... I don't have any "new" answers
or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out
whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about
asking where gravity "originates" from?.... is it an "attraction"
generated within the atomic structure of things... drawing everything
together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow things
are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is
"there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity
is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the
"escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a
metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty"
space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the
atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of
attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long
togetherness...
> ...
>
> read more »
or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out
whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about
asking where gravity "originates" from?.... is it an "attraction"
generated within the atomic structure of things... drawing everything
together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow things
are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is
"there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity
is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the
"escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a
metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty"
space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the
atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of
attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long
togetherness...
>
> read more »
johnlawrencereedjr
Jun 2, 2011, 9:06:41 PM6/2/11
to Epistemology
Nominal 9 wrote>
On the one hand this turns out to be a simple and illuminating answer.
On the other hand the origination of anything hardly seems to be an
obtainable answer. There is always another open question behind any
solution. What we wind up with are perspectives that are less wrong
rather than all encompassing and stone cold correct.
What I meant to say was “are you with me so far” or “do you have any
serious objections or points of absolute disagreement?” It hardly
seems to make sense in continuing if you have a serious objection so
far.
I have already written where gravity originates from. Gravity
originates from our tactile sense. An action is applied and we sense a
“Force”. Our sense of force is in the effort we apply to an outside
action of resistance. We lift a rock. We push a cart. We drag a sled.
In all these actions we can say that we are acting in response to a
“resistance”. We can ask what causes the resistance. If we ask what
causes gravity while we assume that gravity causes the resistance in
cases (the vertical mainly), we are bound to a path we have defined in
our own image.
We are assuming that the force we exert is equal and opposite to a
force the universe exerts on us. We have defined the resistance we
encounter [mg] as equal to the force we exert.
So how is it we are enabled to do this? The answer is demonstrated
with the function of the balance scale. The balance scale isolates the
quantity mass [m] (because the planet attractor does not act on mass
[m]) which does not change with location. The balance scale also
measures what we feel [mg] where [mg] changes with location because
[g] is dependent on location and not dependent on mass [m].
So [m] and [g] are consistent attributes of the universe that we can
quantify in units that match what we feel, or weight [mg].
.is it an "attraction"
jr writes>
We feel resistance. We respond to an attraction. The attraction is not
acting on our weight [mg]. Our weight is a measure of the resistance
we feel. The planet attractor is not acting on what we think we feel.
The planet attractor acts on our atoms. We feel the cumulative
resistance of our acted upon atoms.
See my above explanation. Forget a universal cause called gravity.
What you feel is equal and opposite to the force you exert. The
attraction is on atoms to start, which is electromagnetic. When the
number of atoms gets large enough to over power our subjective sense
of Force in units of “gravity” a collapse to a black hole caused by
our subjective super controller gravity does not occur.
What happens in response to that pressure is a realignment of the
individual atomic electromagnetic fields which realignment results in
a collapse and a super dynamo (super atom) at the cores of planets and
suns that attracts all matter not merely the matter composed of
optimally aligned atoms that we recognize as electromagnetic matter.
Have a good time. johnreed.
> ...
>
> read more »
I have nothing to tear away, really.... I don't have any "new"
answers
or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out
whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about
asking where gravity "originates" from?
jr writes>
answers
or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out
whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about
asking where gravity "originates" from?
On the one hand this turns out to be a simple and illuminating answer.
On the other hand the origination of anything hardly seems to be an
obtainable answer. There is always another open question behind any
solution. What we wind up with are perspectives that are less wrong
rather than all encompassing and stone cold correct.
What I meant to say was “are you with me so far” or “do you have any
serious objections or points of absolute disagreement?” It hardly
seems to make sense in continuing if you have a serious objection so
far.
I have already written where gravity originates from. Gravity
originates from our tactile sense. An action is applied and we sense a
“Force”. Our sense of force is in the effort we apply to an outside
action of resistance. We lift a rock. We push a cart. We drag a sled.
In all these actions we can say that we are acting in response to a
“resistance”. We can ask what causes the resistance. If we ask what
causes gravity while we assume that gravity causes the resistance in
cases (the vertical mainly), we are bound to a path we have defined in
our own image.
We are assuming that the force we exert is equal and opposite to a
force the universe exerts on us. We have defined the resistance we
encounter [mg] as equal to the force we exert.
So how is it we are enabled to do this? The answer is demonstrated
with the function of the balance scale. The balance scale isolates the
quantity mass [m] (because the planet attractor does not act on mass
[m]) which does not change with location. The balance scale also
measures what we feel [mg] where [mg] changes with location because
[g] is dependent on location and not dependent on mass [m].
So [m] and [g] are consistent attributes of the universe that we can
quantify in units that match what we feel, or weight [mg].
.is it an "attraction"
jr writes>
We feel resistance. We respond to an attraction. The attraction is not
acting on our weight [mg]. Our weight is a measure of the resistance
we feel. The planet attractor is not acting on what we think we feel.
The planet attractor acts on our atoms. We feel the cumulative
resistance of our acted upon atoms.
generated within the atomic structure of things... drawing everything
together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow
things
are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is
"there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity
is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the
"escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a
metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty"
space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the
atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of
attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long
togetherness...
jr writes>
together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow
things
are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is
"there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity
is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the
"escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a
metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty"
space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the
atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of
attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long
togetherness...
See my above explanation. Forget a universal cause called gravity.
What you feel is equal and opposite to the force you exert. The
attraction is on atoms to start, which is electromagnetic. When the
number of atoms gets large enough to over power our subjective sense
of Force in units of “gravity” a collapse to a black hole caused by
our subjective super controller gravity does not occur.
What happens in response to that pressure is a realignment of the
individual atomic electromagnetic fields which realignment results in
a collapse and a super dynamo (super atom) at the cores of planets and
suns that attracts all matter not merely the matter composed of
optimally aligned atoms that we recognize as electromagnetic matter.
Have a good time. johnreed.
>
> read more »
nominal9
Jun 3, 2011, 10:03:12 AM6/3/11
to Epistemology
I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic force....
doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as
electromagnetic forces are so far understood.... If gravity were just
a plain electromagnetic force then "we" could all just reverse the
polarity between two objects and propel ourselves away from
"Things".... like a spaceship could just "force" itself through space
by bouncing off or hopscotching from one source of gravity to
another.... this is nice science fiction, so far... still, however,
"we" haven' t been able to build a motor to do it.... maybe some ETs
(if they exist) have.....I don't mean to ridicule.... but I think your
proposed factual definition to me regarding gravity as an
electromagnetic force requires further explanation or
amplification.... you might just well know that what you are saying is
absolutely true... but you need to explain it a bit better to my un-
scientific "layman's" ignorant mind....
I still ask... can you better define what gravity is?....Is it a
"force" that can be "generated"... like electricity.... or
magnetism.... or nuclear level weak and strong et al... forces?
> ...
>
> read more »
doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as
electromagnetic forces are so far understood.... If gravity were just
a plain electromagnetic force then "we" could all just reverse the
polarity between two objects and propel ourselves away from
"Things".... like a spaceship could just "force" itself through space
by bouncing off or hopscotching from one source of gravity to
another.... this is nice science fiction, so far... still, however,
"we" haven' t been able to build a motor to do it.... maybe some ETs
(if they exist) have.....I don't mean to ridicule.... but I think your
proposed factual definition to me regarding gravity as an
electromagnetic force requires further explanation or
amplification.... you might just well know that what you are saying is
absolutely true... but you need to explain it a bit better to my un-
scientific "layman's" ignorant mind....
I still ask... can you better define what gravity is?....Is it a
"force" that can be "generated"... like electricity.... or
magnetism.... or nuclear level weak and strong et al... forces?
>
> read more »
awori achoka
Jun 3, 2011, 10:09:17 AM6/3/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Do you know what energy is? If we knew what that phenomenon is...this dialogue would not b there.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
johnlawrencereedjr
Jun 6, 2011, 10:58:51 PM6/6/11
to Epistemology
On Jun 3, 7:03 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic force...
jr writes> You are oversimplifying what I wrote making it
> I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic force...
unnecessarily complex. I am saying that in the planet surface case we
have the phenomenon we witness and define as electromagnetism. This
either involves an ordered array of atoms externally or an ordered
array of atoms that are arranged optimally internally… or both (No
proposal here now of the meaning of optimal although I have
entertained that elsewhere).The other “non-electromagnetic matter” is
arranged irregularly enough internally as to not behave
electromagnetically as we define electromagnetism. We witness
magnetism but we feel it secondarily not directly as a pull on us but
indirectly as a pull on a magnet, etc.
I have explained that gravity is a force that begins and ends in what
we as living objects feel. If our atoms were arranged optimally we
could feel magnetism directly. When our atoms are so arranged we are
in the process of being electrocuted.
The idea that gravity is a separate force from the universe than the
manifestation of a force we feel causes us to invent absurd notions
like blackholes… just as though electromagnetism is subservient to a
force we feel. A force we feel will crush electromagnetism into a
blackhole. A force we feel will cause electromagnetism a problem. Why
is it only me that readily sees the absurdity here?
Clearly gravity is a force we feel and electromagnetism is a force
that fortunately we don’t feel most of the time. We can say since
gravity is a force we feel it is fundamental and inanimate objects
also are subservient to this force. Except that clearly inanimate
objects are not alive and I assume then that inanimate objects do not
feel anything. So whatever force is acting on us, since it is uniquely
defined by each of our weights and our weights are a function of our
matter and our matter is composed of atoms, then if gravity is the
universal controller, the inanimate object also composed of atoms must
feel the cumulative resistance of its atoms. But since it is not alive
as a body of connected atoms, can at best only feel one atom at a
time. Thus all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum never
recognizing that together they exert a greater force together than
apart. But if they could feel that collective force they would
initially believe in it too.
doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as
electromagnetic forces are so far understood...
understood blackholes would be understood as the foolishness they are.
Blackholes are a direct consequence of our gravitational ignorance.
Like a force we feel will commandeer electromagnetism… er uh the
speed of light.
. If gravity were just
a plain electromagnetic force
living objects feel. We can define what we feel consistent with a
product of the quantities mass and acceleration. Mass does not change
with location and [g] depends solely on location. The universe is a
least action universe where mass [m] and acceleration [g] operate
within that least action, thus enabling the functional use of
mathematics which is least action consistent in all cases.
We feel the pull of the planet as the product [mg]. We will feel this
numerical least action consistent quantity everywhere. That does not
mean that the universe is controlled by the force we feel.
Electromagnetism acts on atoms. Gravity is what we feel acting on our
atoms in total. We work against this cumulative pull. So we have
gravity and electromagnetism each acting on our atoms. Can we get a
consensus there? Gravity acts on atoms. Electro-Magnetism acts on
atoms.
then "we" could all just reverse the
polarity between two objects and propel ourselves away from
"Things".... like a spaceship could just "force" itself through space
by bouncing off or hopscotching from one source of gravity to
another...
the universe exerts. What you feel and what you apply has been defined
consistent with the universe action. I say that altho’ it is
functional it is fantasy beyond your sense of force.
this is nice science fiction, so far... still, however,
"we" haven' t been able to build a motor to do it...
universality of the force you initiate in response to an attraction on
your atoms because it is functional everywhere in the universe that
you feel it and you and those who think like you will invent
blackholes that eliminate the attraction on atoms and make that force
subject to what you feel. Why should the force you initiate also be a
force you respond to? Where the resistance you encounter is merely
defined consistent with a force you feel.
. maybe some ETs
(if they exist) have.....I don't mean to ridicule.... but I think
your
proposed factual definition to me regarding gravity as an
electromagnetic force requires further explanation or
amplification...
worthless.
. you might just well know that what you are saying is
absolutely true... but you need to explain it a bit better to my un-
scientific "layman's" ignorant mind...
absolutely true..
I still ask... can you better define what gravity is?....Is it a
"force" that can be "generated"... like electricity.... or
magnetism.... or nuclear level weak and strong et al... forces
notion that gravity will eliminate nuclear force. Just compress it to
a blackhumanhole immediately after it eliminates atomic forces as it
travels inexorably on its gravitational crushing path based on what we
feel as force when we apply force to resistance, and a rate of travel
that exceeds the speed of…? The speed of light? Everything is
subject to the speed of light? Where light is another sensory quantity
that encompasses EMR because we see illuminated objects? Note the the
description WE SEE and note the description WE FEEL.
Don’t you think that nuclear forces can respond to excessive pressure.
The extrapolation of what we feel. And is there pressure enough to
cause atomic obliteration? Is there lotsa’ space in atoms. We know
that atoms generate electromagnetism by optimal internal arrangement
in conjunction with external arrangement. We know that such
arrangements cause EM force to extend beyond the confines of the so
ordered atoms. I say that long before a blackhumanfelthole occurs the
nuclear and atomic lines of force will join to counter the measely
human notion of gravitational pressure. A collapse will occur and a
super atom will generate electromagnetism that will arrange control
and attract all atoms, whatever their configuration. Like normal
electromagnetism this super atom will act on atoms, but unlike the
electromagnetism we encounter this super atom will act on all atoms
and we will call it gravity.
Have a good time.
johnreed
johnreed
>
> read more »
nominal9
Jun 7, 2011, 7:09:33 PM6/7/11
to Epistemology
jr....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
can you point to a paragraph or section in the Wiki article to give me
a hint as to your own preferred theory regarding gravity?
> ...
>
> read more »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
can you point to a paragraph or section in the Wiki article to give me
a hint as to your own preferred theory regarding gravity?
>
> read more »
johnlawrencereedjr
Jun 7, 2011, 10:48:39 PM6/7/11
to Epistemology
Damn Nominal 9 I have copied the opening salvo you reference. Here it
is "Gravitation , or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which
physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In
everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives
weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when
dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and
coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence
of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the
universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the
other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in
its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural
convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a
density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming
stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other
phenomena observed on Earth.
Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature,
along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak
force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory
of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the
curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The
simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate
approximation for most physical situations."
jr writes> I say that is mostly all a crock of shit. Almost every last
word. The planet attractor acts on your atoms and your atoms are
proportional to your mass. Your mass acts on nothing. So this states
that gravitation is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass..
I say that weight is something we feel in response to an attraction of
our atoms toward a planet. We then call something we feel a force and
assign this force that we feel to the universe as controlling.
OK well dig it. I am weary from the day's activities right now.
Negotiating this garbage in particular is what I have been doing all
along. Reading it almost makes me gag. So I will copy this and retire
to my chamberse and get back later. I will send this now. I will
return. Have a good time.
> ...
>
> read more »
is "Gravitation , or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which
physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In
everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives
weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when
dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and
coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence
of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the
universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the
other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in
its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural
convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a
density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming
stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other
phenomena observed on Earth.
Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature,
along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak
force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory
of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the
curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The
simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate
approximation for most physical situations."
jr writes> I say that is mostly all a crock of shit. Almost every last
word. The planet attractor acts on your atoms and your atoms are
proportional to your mass. Your mass acts on nothing. So this states
that gravitation is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass..
I say that weight is something we feel in response to an attraction of
our atoms toward a planet. We then call something we feel a force and
assign this force that we feel to the universe as controlling.
OK well dig it. I am weary from the day's activities right now.
Negotiating this garbage in particular is what I have been doing all
along. Reading it almost makes me gag. So I will copy this and retire
to my chamberse and get back later. I will send this now. I will
return. Have a good time.
>
> read more »
nominal9
Jun 8, 2011, 10:51:02 AM6/8/11
to Epistemology
Catch you another time... jr....
If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part....
maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to
gravitation that you agree with most......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
Main article: Alternatives to general relativity
Historical alternative theories
* Aristotelian theory of gravity
* Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage
gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based
explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
* Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early
competitor of general relativity.
* Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early
competitor of general relativity.
Recent alternative theories
* Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
* Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according
to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of
matter
* In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for
small accelerations
* The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A.
Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass
creation
* Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
* Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic
modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
* Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent
phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
See also
A Swarm of Ancient Stars - GPN-2000-000930.jpg Gravitation portal
* Anti-gravity, the idea of neutralizing or repelling gravity
* Artificial gravity
* Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations
* Escape velocity, the minimum velocity needed to escape from a
gravity well
* g-force, a measure of acceleration
* Gravitational induction
* Gravitational binding energy
* Gravity assist
* Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
* Gravity Research Foundation
* Gauss' law for gravity
* Jovian-Plutonian gravitational effect
* Kepler's third law of planetary motion
* Lagrangian point
* Mixmaster dynamics
* Newton's laws of motion
* n-body problem
* Pioneer anomaly
* Scalar theories of gravitation
* Speed of gravity
* Standard gravitational parameter
* Standard gravity
* Weightlessness
If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part....
maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to
gravitation that you agree with most......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
Main article: Alternatives to general relativity
Historical alternative theories
* Aristotelian theory of gravity
* Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage
gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based
explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
* Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early
competitor of general relativity.
* Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early
competitor of general relativity.
Recent alternative theories
* Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
* Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according
to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of
matter
* In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for
small accelerations
* The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A.
Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass
creation
* Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
* Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic
modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
* Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent
phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
See also
A Swarm of Ancient Stars - GPN-2000-000930.jpg Gravitation portal
* Anti-gravity, the idea of neutralizing or repelling gravity
* Artificial gravity
* Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations
* Escape velocity, the minimum velocity needed to escape from a
gravity well
* g-force, a measure of acceleration
* Gravitational induction
* Gravitational binding energy
* Gravity assist
* Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
* Gravity Research Foundation
* Gauss' law for gravity
* Jovian-Plutonian gravitational effect
* Kepler's third law of planetary motion
* Lagrangian point
* Mixmaster dynamics
* Newton's laws of motion
* n-body problem
* Pioneer anomaly
* Scalar theories of gravitation
* Speed of gravity
* Standard gravitational parameter
* Standard gravity
* Weightlessness
johnlawrencereedjr
Jun 11, 2011, 9:12:43 PM6/11/11
to Epistemology
jr writes>
I have been exposed to all these theories that you mention and have
disposed of them for one reason or another and at least 5 more that
derive from Einstein's notion for a uniform gravitational field (Why
all objects fall at the same rate? Because we can look at it as though
the ground is moving up. So the field is uniform.) acting on and
explaining mass while placing ultimate cause on the curvature of space-
time merely extends the incorrect Newtonian notion that mass generates
gravity, while making it dependent on least action motion, which is
the so called space-time curvature which directs the motion of so
called inertial bodies (where inertial bodies include planets and
stars) along that curvature. The math works fine here for the least
action motion trajectories (the insignificant ones we encounter and
the great ones approaching lightspeed), because least action smooths
out lumpiness our object/space minds the larger it becomes and fails
to deliver at sizes smaller than our object-space approach allows, and
calling it the consequence of a curved space-time, tosses all the
known ignorance into one big pot of stoopid.
I am working on another approach to explain that gravity is a force we
feel. We have no idea its cause as the Wikipedia opening salvo readily
states while acting otherwise. This if you take it seriously and
examine what it says in detail. It says that we feel a force we call
gravity and have assumed that it is the entire nine yards of the
universe. No other theory is like mine in any way. Mine is brand new
and it is the opening of a door from which there is no immediate
direction to continue other than the directions I have explored and
not completed. I have only one lifetime. I would like some assistance
but I seem to be unable to even communicate the problem successfully.
Its something that hits you once you get it, like a wave of increased
clarity. But then you see the problem as well, which is enough to just
make you shake your head in the realization that mankind has traveled
too far on to little and no one wants to see the truth. Thinking burns
up energy. Much easier to do the expedient math.
I will return.
johnreed
On Jun 8, 7:51 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Catch you another time... jr....
>
> If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part....
> maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to
> gravitation that you agree with most......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
I have been exposed to all these theories that you mention and have
disposed of them for one reason or another and at least 5 more that
derive from Einstein's notion for a uniform gravitational field (Why
all objects fall at the same rate? Because we can look at it as though
the ground is moving up. So the field is uniform.) acting on and
explaining mass while placing ultimate cause on the curvature of space-
time merely extends the incorrect Newtonian notion that mass generates
gravity, while making it dependent on least action motion, which is
the so called space-time curvature which directs the motion of so
called inertial bodies (where inertial bodies include planets and
stars) along that curvature. The math works fine here for the least
action motion trajectories (the insignificant ones we encounter and
the great ones approaching lightspeed), because least action smooths
out lumpiness our object/space minds the larger it becomes and fails
to deliver at sizes smaller than our object-space approach allows, and
calling it the consequence of a curved space-time, tosses all the
known ignorance into one big pot of stoopid.
I am working on another approach to explain that gravity is a force we
feel. We have no idea its cause as the Wikipedia opening salvo readily
states while acting otherwise. This if you take it seriously and
examine what it says in detail. It says that we feel a force we call
gravity and have assumed that it is the entire nine yards of the
universe. No other theory is like mine in any way. Mine is brand new
and it is the opening of a door from which there is no immediate
direction to continue other than the directions I have explored and
not completed. I have only one lifetime. I would like some assistance
but I seem to be unable to even communicate the problem successfully.
Its something that hits you once you get it, like a wave of increased
clarity. But then you see the problem as well, which is enough to just
make you shake your head in the realization that mankind has traveled
too far on to little and no one wants to see the truth. Thinking burns
up energy. Much easier to do the expedient math.
I will return.
johnreed
On Jun 8, 7:51 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Catch you another time... jr....
>
> If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part....
> maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to
Serenity Smiles
Jun 12, 2011, 2:49:44 AM6/12/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Higga Bosun here, they managed to do the maths through my chip n pinned
"eyes" the other week, when I was stoned and staring at the white background
of my loo door lol, I could see all the particles in their ethereal dance
against the white background, shortly after this the news announced they had
managed to hold the collider long enough to do their objectives.
"eyes" the other week, when I was stoned and staring at the white background
of my loo door lol, I could see all the particles in their ethereal dance
against the white background, shortly after this the news announced they had
managed to hold the collider long enough to do their objectives.
> * Nordstr�m's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early
> competitor of general relativity.
> * Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early
> competitor of general relativity.
>
> Recent alternative theories
>
> * Brans�Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
> * Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according
> to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of
> matter
> * In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai
> Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for
> small accelerations
> * The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A.
> Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass
> creation
> * Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
> * Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic
> modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
> * Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent
> phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
>
> See also
> A Swarm of Ancient Stars - GPN-2000-000930.jpg Gravitation portal
>
> * Anti-gravity, the idea of neutralizing or repelling gravity
> * Artificial gravity
> * Einstein�Infeld�Hoffmann equations
> > > > array of atoms that are arranged optimally internally� or both (No
> > > > proposal here now of the meaning of optimal although I have
> > > > entertained that elsewhere).The other �non-electromagnetic matter�
> > > > is
> > > > arranged irregularly enough internally as to not behave
> > > > electromagnetically as we define electromagnetism. We witness
> > > > magnetism but we feel it secondarily not directly as a pull on us
> > > > but
> > > > indirectly as a pull on a magnet, etc.
>
> > > > I have explained that gravity is a force that begins and ends in
> > > > what
> > > > we as living objects feel. If our atoms were arranged optimally we
> > > > could feel magnetism directly. When our atoms are so arranged we
> > > > are
> > > > in the process of being electrocuted.
> > > > The idea that gravity is a separate force from the universe than the
> > > > manifestation of a force we feel causes us to invent absurd notions
> > > > like blackholes� just as though electromagnetism is subservient to a
> > > > force we feel. A force we feel will crush electromagnetism into a
> > > > blackhole. A force we feel will cause electromagnetism a problem.
> > > > Why
> > > > is it only me that readily sees the absurdity here?
>
> > > > Clearly gravity is a force we feel and electromagnetism is a force
> > > > that fortunately we don�t feel most of the time. We can say since
> > > > gravity is a force we feel it is fundamental and inanimate objects
> > > > also are subservient to this force. Except that clearly inanimate
> > > > objects are not alive and I assume then that inanimate objects do
> > > > not
> > > > feel anything. So whatever force is acting on us, since it is
> > > > uniquely
> > > > defined by each of our weights and our weights are a function of our
> > > > matter and our matter is composed of atoms, then if gravity is the
> > > > universal controller, the inanimate object also composed of atoms
> > > > must
> > > > feel the cumulative resistance of its atoms. But since it is not
> > > > alive
> > > > as a body of connected atoms, can at best only feel one atom at a
> > > > time. Thus all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum never
> > > > recognizing that together they exert a greater force together than
> > > > apart. But if they could feel that collective force they would
> > > > initially believe in it too.
>
> > > > doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as
> > > > electromagnetic forces are so far understood...
>
> > > > jr writes> Electromagnetism is not understood at all. If it were
> > > > understood blackholes would be understood as the foolishness they
> > > > are.
> > > > Blackholes are a direct consequence of our gravitational ignorance.
> > > > Like a force we feel will commandeer electromagnetism� er uh the
> > > > consistent with the universe action. I say that altho� it is
> > > > jr writes> OK let�s take nuclear forces. Do we really entertain the
> > > > notion that gravity will eliminate nuclear force. Just compress it
> > > > to
> > > > a blackhumanhole immediately after it eliminates atomic forces as it
> > > > travels inexorably on its gravitational crushing path based on what
> > > > we
> > > > feel as force when we apply force to resistance, and a rate of
> > > > travel
> > > > that exceeds the speed of�? The speed of light? Everything is
> > > > subject to the speed of light? Where light is another sensory
> > > > quantity
> > > > that encompasses EMR because we see illuminated objects? Note the
> > > > the
> > > > description WE SEE and note the description WE FEEL.
>
> > > > Don�t you think that nuclear forces can respond to excessive
> > > > pressure.
> > > > The extrapolation of what we feel. And is there pressure enough to
> > > > cause atomic obliteration? Is there lotsa� space in atoms. We know
> > > read more �
nominal9
Jun 12, 2011, 2:27:57 PM6/12/11
to Epistemology
I think I get it that ... discovery is tough... I think I made a
"discovery" once... tried to communicate it to others.... didn't get
too far....so I empathize... I wish you the best, jr.... and I wish I
could help... but I doubt that I have the "mathematical or the
scientific tools"...I would need more than a lifetime of being
"brought up to speed" before I could perhaps be of any help.....
UIn my case... I found that what I was looking at gave rise to two
diffent resuls altogether depending upon whether the methodological
operation was either "Concept - based " or Reference- based".... same
process but different contrapositions... pretty easy to see as a
model.... but hard to get at if you didn't think the problem out in
"twos"
CONCEPT BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION
C/R.................C/R
circle/ round.... square/rectangular
C/R.................C/R
circle/rectangular......square/round
REFERENCE BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION
C/R.................C/R
circle/ round....square/rectangular
C/R..................C/R
square/round....circle/ rectangular
This is based on Aristotle's so-called square of logical
opposition...."Contraries" go horizontally on both "lines" of each
square .... Contradictories go diagonally on both lines of each
square...
Both are valid... but different... see?
> ...
>
> read more »
"discovery" once... tried to communicate it to others.... didn't get
too far....so I empathize... I wish you the best, jr.... and I wish I
could help... but I doubt that I have the "mathematical or the
scientific tools"...I would need more than a lifetime of being
"brought up to speed" before I could perhaps be of any help.....
UIn my case... I found that what I was looking at gave rise to two
diffent resuls altogether depending upon whether the methodological
operation was either "Concept - based " or Reference- based".... same
process but different contrapositions... pretty easy to see as a
model.... but hard to get at if you didn't think the problem out in
"twos"
CONCEPT BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION
C/R.................C/R
circle/ round.... square/rectangular
C/R.................C/R
circle/rectangular......square/round
REFERENCE BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION
C/R.................C/R
circle/ round....square/rectangular
C/R..................C/R
square/round....circle/ rectangular
This is based on Aristotle's so-called square of logical
opposition...."Contraries" go horizontally on both "lines" of each
square .... Contradictories go diagonally on both lines of each
square...
Both are valid... but different... see?
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages