Einstein discovered weightlessness in gravity
BURT
the man told him that for a while he couldn't feel his weight. From
this the weightlessness of freefall gravity was discovered by Albert
Einstein.
Mitch Reamsch -- Light fall --
PD
> He saw his neighbor fall of the roof. He went to see if he was OK and
> the man told him that for a while he couldn't feel his weight. From
> this the weightlessness of freefall gravity was discovered by Albert
> Einstein.
Very cute.
However, this little allegory should tell you that what you feel isn't
gravity at all. In fact, even in an elevator, everyone experiences a
change in what they feel, even though gravity hasn't changed a lick.
PD
BURT
A rate of change in motion weight of the elevator is just another form
of gravity.
This is rate of change of motion gravity.
Mitch Reamsch -- Light freefalling --
PD
> On Dec 14, 3:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 14, 4:55 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > He saw his neighbor fall of the roof. He went to see if he was OK and
> > > the man told him that for a while he couldn't feel his weight. From
> > > this the weightlessness of freefall gravity was discovered by Albert
> > > Einstein.
>
> > Very cute.
> > However, this little allegory should tell you that what you feel isn't
> > gravity at all. In fact, even in an elevator, everyone experiences a
> > change in what they feel, even though gravity hasn't changed a lick.
>
> > PD
>
> No way. Weight is gravity.
That's right. But you don't feel your weight. Didn't I just say that?
> A rate of change in motion weight of the elevator is just another form
> of gravity.
> This is rate of change of motion gravity.
Motion weight? Motion gravity?
At one time, Mitch, you were merely wrong. Now you're incoherent. It's
an extra spice in the mix, but that doesn't make the recipe more
interesting.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Freefall is weightless gravity.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Freefall motion is detectable when it ends. Deceleration when falling
ends is how to detect what rate of freefall motion was.
MItch Raemsch
PD
The incoherence now forms a tight circle. You just -- correctly --
said that weight is gravity.
So now you're saying that freefall is weightless weight, or that
freefall is gravityless gravity.
PD
BURT
Not at all. Gravity is dual; weight and freefall weightlessness.
> PD- Hide quoted text -
PD
Really? Suppose you're in free-fall and you decelerate for 2 seconds.
Now freefall identically and now decelerate at the same rate, but for
4 seconds. Now which case produces the stop, or does either? How would
you know?
If you toss a ball in the air, it's in freefall for the whole trip,
and it's also decelerating the whole way up. As viewed by something
traveling at 200 m/s downwards, the ball is decelerating for the whole
trip, not just for half of it. Which one is right?
PD
PD
PD
Well, I knew you could spread the incoherence in a larger circle if
you tried.
PD
BURT
The ball goes up and decelerates and then down accelerating.
Idiot.
> PD
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
PD
Not according to thing traveling at 200 m/s downwards. Idiot.
PD
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Accelerating against air resistance huh?
Cretan.
PD
Nope. Nothing to do with that.
>
> Cretan.
Actually, never been to Crete.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Take a trip. You belong there.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell All The WAY --
xx...@comcast.net
xxein: Having read all before (15 to date), each of you has some sort
of a claim, neither being completely correct. I shiver at the thought
that either of you would determine the structure whereby we study the
physic.
Pepe le Pew
Hmmmmm..
What I see is two big guns shooting peas at each other.
They're conservative with words and that is what leads to
the others' misunderstandings. This may be attributable to one or both
gentlemen having English as their second language.
Oh well,
Later,
Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
BURT
If you can't see that part of gravity is a weightless acceleration
then you don't understand it.
Its as simple as that.
Mitch Raemsch --- Light Fall --
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
It could also be a weightless deceleration.
Jimbo
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac29802f-2d60-4471...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Am I wrong? If I remember it correctly, you fall (on earth) at the rate of
32 feet per sec.^2. As I understand it the force of gravity is approximately
the same if you are falling from the upper atmosphere (not counting the
friction of air and its density) as if you are falling from a building close
to the ground.
There would be no *weightlessness* because the attraction of gravity is what
is pulling you to the large object (earth) - eventually you go splat. Your
weight is there for the amount of pull that gravity has on you. The only
difference between falling and standing on the ground is the fact that you
are not moving if you are standing on the ground. The pull of gravity is
still equal and thus your weight is still equal.
Or, Mitch, are you saying that while falling you are not subject to the pull
of gravity and thus you are weightless? This can not be because the falling
part means that something is pulling you toward it.
What exactly is your definition of weight? Is it simply the amount of
attraction between two objects or do you mean to say that it is variable in
relation to motion?
I am confused by what you say.
BURT
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a weightless pull known as freefall.
Sam Wormley
Astronauts are "weightless" in freefall. The force of gravity is
still approximately "g" in low earth orbit... but if you tried
to "weight" something on a spring or balance scale... it would
read zero.
Jimbo
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd454d94-f063-4acd...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I want to understand. What is this weightless pull known as freefall?
I thought that all pull, as it relates to gravity, is what we perceive as
weight and the only way that we can measure (weight vs. weightlessness) is
in relation to the force that it exerts upon us when we are against an
immovable body or the degree of pull that draws us toward that said body.
Are they not the same?
So what you are saying is that there is another force ( a subset of
gravity? ) that is not measured this way!?
Still confused!
Please, explain or give me a URL that explains this in layman's terms. I'm
not strong in the theories of physics but I do like to understand the world
around me. I am curious.
I will google freefall to see what it has to offer but I would still like to
know what someone in the "industry" has to say about the subject.
Like I said, I am curious and I hate not knowing about things that are
presented to me.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is also the idea of the weightless push. From the point of view
of matter gravity is a pull toward the center or what I call origin.
But from space it could be a push. A space push toward origin.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
The reason why you feel your weight sitting in that chair is because
your stomach is pulled downward by gravity, but your hip is pushing
your stomach up. The reason why you do not feel any weight in free
fall is because every part of your body is not pushed up. The
gravitational force is still very real. If you close your eyes on the
gravitational force, you will end up in a tragic end by jumping out of
a window in a tall building. <shrug>
There is also nothing in the mathematics that disproves gravity as a
force.
Sam Wormley
>
> I want to understand. What is this weightless pull known as freefall?
>
> I thought that all pull, as it relates to gravity, is what we perceive as
> weight and the only way that we can measure (weight vs. weightlessness) is
> in relation to the force that it exerts upon us when we are against an
> immovable body or the degree of pull that draws us toward that said body.
> Are they not the same?
>
> So what you are saying is that there is another force ( a subset of
> gravity? ) that is not measured this way!?
>
> Still confused!
Jimbo
So, the push from space (all the objects in outer space as well as dark
matter) create a force that pushes against us away from outer space towards
inner space (the origin)? We are being pushed towards what? Are we being
forced back towards the origin - the center of the big bang?
Do I understand you correct? There is a force that is pushing us back to the
origin of space as we think we know it?
If so is that what creates the weightlessness or freefall that you speak of?
I think I'm starting to understand but all this requires a drastic change of
thought from what the common person contemplates.
Thank you for your replies.
I hear my wife calling now so I will have to continue this another day.
Thanks for the quick responses!
zzbu...@netscape.net
> He saw his neighbor fall of the roof. He went to see if he was OK and
> the man told him that for a while he couldn't feel his weight. From
> this the weightlessness of freefall gravity was discovered by Albert
> Einstein.
Well we've discovered anything and everything counts
as a computer in moron relativity.
If something doesn't actually calculate a decernible physical
quanity,
they just stick it in their moron Fig Neutron budget and
call it steel wool.
Sam Wormley
>
> If so is that what creates the weightlessness or freefall that you speak of?
>
> I think I'm starting to understand but all this requires a drastic change of
> thought from what the common person contemplates.
>
> Thank you for your replies.
> I hear my wife calling now so I will have to continue this another day.
>
> Thanks for the quick responses!
>
>
Bill Habr
"Jimbo" <chri...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Za39j.37374$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx...
http://www.physics.montana.edu/microg/micro.htm
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Dec 14, 5:28 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 3:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 14, 4:55 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > He saw his neighbor fall of the roof. He went to see if he was OK and
> > > > the man told him that for a while he couldn't feel his weight. From
> > > > this the weightlessness of freefall gravity was discovered by Albert
> > > > Einstein.
>
> > > Very cute.
> > > However, this little allegory should tell you that what you feel isn't
> > > gravity at all. In fact, even in an elevator, everyone experiences a
> > > change in what they feel, even though gravity hasn't changed a lick.
>
> > > PD
>
> > No way. Weight is gravity.
>
> That's right. But you don't feel your weight. Didn't I just say that?
>
> > A rate of change in motion weight of the elevator is just another form
> > of gravity.
> > This is rate of change of motion gravity.
>
> Motion weight? Motion gravity?
>
> At one time, Mitch, you were merely wrong. Now you're incoherent. It's
> an extra spice in the mix, but that doesn't make the recipe more
> interesting.
They invent terminology randomly, just like their models,
only to prove what was previously known.
The morons couldn't pass a logic-101 primer course with
the help of Turing.
The morons couldnl't do a controlled-experiment if
The Wright Borthers gave them the land, the money,
the gasoline, the idea, and the Publicity.
The morons couldn't make a qualified laser if a
maser threw it at them.
Pepe le Pew
Hi Mitch,
I have only a fundamental understanding of physics. Enough to function
in the career I have followed. I like to expand my horizons, so I try
to follow the physics discussions sometimes.
So I groan when a decent physics thread decays into personal attacks.
BTW, do you have a personal web site somewhere? I'm just curious what
else you write about.
Later,
Pepe le Pew
Sid
Is the Earth really weightless?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the sun's gravity yes.
Mitch raemsch
Pepe le Pew
Hi Jimbo,
I've been trying to follow this discussion as well.
I think there's a problem with semantics here. I've
only had elementary physics, but as I understand it
all objects have mass, but not necessarily weight.
Now all objects that have mass also apply a force
to all other objects and we call that force gravity.
Now an object in space that is not in contact with
another object is influenced by its gravity and this can
give it motion, but it can only have weight when it
(finally) comes into contact with the other body.
Later,
Pepe le Pew
BURT
> Jimbo wrote:
> > "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Weightless acceleration.
Jimbo
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightless
Last night I was posting my replies based on what I thought ('nonsense'
insert comments here about "... I thought ...") was the definition of
*weight* and just sort of free-running with the conversation.
According to this Wiki link, my definition of weight was not exactly
accurate.
Pepe, I do not know if Mitch really knows what he is talking about. He could
be the next Hawking or Einstein for all I know.
But, what I do know is that, to me at least, it is often hard to figure out
just what the hell he is talking about.
He might have very good and valid ideas but his presentation is usually not
very clear and it seems that attempts to get him to clarify his points end
up creating more confusion.
I've
>> only had elementary physics, but as I understand it
>> all objects have mass, but not necessarily weight.
>> Now all objects that have mass also apply a force
>> to all other objects and we call that force gravity.
>>
>> Now an object in space that is not in contact with
>> another object is influenced by its gravity and this can
>> give it motion, but it can only have weight when it
>> (finally) comes into contact with the other body.
See, you present your thoughts in a way that makes it easy to understand
your point.
Hint, hint - Mitch.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My only point is that Einstein was the gravity Guru discovering
weightlessness of freefall gravity or thye state of weightless
acceleration..
nonsense
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightless
> Last night I was posting my replies based on what I thought ('nonsense'
> insert comments here about "... I thought ...")
Seeds so far have fallen on fertile ground and are growing
very nicely indeed.
> was the definition of
> *weight* and just sort of free-running with the conversation.
> According to this Wiki link, my definition of weight was not exactly
> accurate.
> Pepe, I do not know if Mitch really knows what he is talking about.
He's at best very confused.
> He could
> be the next Hawking or Einstein for all I know.
> But, what I do know is that, to me at least, it is often hard to figure out
> just what the hell he is talking about.
> He might have very good and valid ideas but his presentation is usually not
> very clear and it seems that attempts to get him to clarify his points end
> up creating more confusion.
This is part of your tuition.
Pepe le Pew
Yeah, I kept reaching for common reference points and jargon. None
there. Oh well.
I suppose exploring physics is a vastly different skill than
explaining it. I can see how a highly gifted physicist might become
exhausted trying to explore esoteric physical phenomena with the
general public. But Mitch's writings don't appear to convey that.
Rather it seems Mitch doesn't have quite the same foundation of
physics jargon that most of us have been exposed to.
Later,
Pepe le Pew
Phil Holman
When you do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Phil H