Gravitational wave ‘radar’ could help map the invisible universe

[israel socratus]

Gravitational wave ‘radar’ could help map the invisible universe
Such “GRADAR” signals could spot globs of dark matter
or very distant neutron stars
By Asa Stahl, JUNE 22, 2022 AT 7:00 AM
---
It sounds like the setup for a joke: If radio waves give you radar and
sound gives you sonar, what do gravitational waves get you?
----
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gravitational-wave-radar-map-invisible-universe-spacetime-dark-matter

[Dale]

On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
> Gravitational wave ‘radar’

but protons don't have weight?

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>
>but protons don't have weight?

Since when?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Dale]

On 6/24/2022 3:28 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>>
>> but protons don't have weight?
>
>
> Since when?
>

got it wrong ...

THANK YOU

it is not always Photons either?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

"The photon's invariant mass (also called "rest mass" for massive
particles) is believed to be exactly zero. This is the notion of
particle mass generally used by modern physicists. The photon does have
a nonzero relativistic mass, depending on its energy, but this varies
according to the frame of reference."

am not a relativity expert ...

[J. J. Lodder]

No need to. Forget about 'relativistic mass',
and throw away all popularised relativity books in which it occurs,

Jan

[Dale]

the definition is an illusion?

still a concept?

all I need to be is an abstract artist

[J. J. Lodder]

Just obsolete, because not the best way of understanding things,

Jan

[israel socratus]

Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . . . Correct?

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . . . Correct?

That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.

[israel socratus]

------------------
Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
10 June 2009
----
Gravity is a real weakling – 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.
---
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>. Correct?
>
>
> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>

That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist. Even so, people have
come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
not.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.

Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
value... ;-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>
>but protons don't have weight?
>

Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>

No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.

>
> Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.
>
>Bill

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.

Any non-zero value, no matter how small is not zero, by definition.

>Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.

You're conflating gravity and gravitational waves. They are not the
same thing.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 7:45:20 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
> >> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
. Correct?
> >> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
> >> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
> >> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
> >> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
> >> --
> >> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> >> You're not entitled to your own facts.
> >------------------
> >Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
> >10 June 2009
> >----

> >Gravity is a real weakling ˆ 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force

that holds atoms together.
> >---
> >https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-
gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.
> >
> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
>
> Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
> value... ;-)

Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
is 'naturally' dimensionless.
The gravitational constant is not,
it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2

So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
You need to assume a mass scale for that,

Jan

So it is not gravity that is weak,
it is electrons and protons that are so very light.
(wait for a TOE for explanations)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:16:18 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 03:51:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 7:45:20 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> >> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>. Correct?
>> >> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> >> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> >> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> >> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>> >> --
>> >> You're entitled to your own opinions.
>> >> You're not entitled to your own facts.
>> >------------------
>> >Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity so weak?
>> >10 June 2009
>> >----

>> >Gravity is a real weakling à 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force

> that holds atoms together.
>> >---
>> >https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-
>gravity-so-weak/#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20a%20real%20weakling,Gravity%20is%20the%20misfit.
>> >
>> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
>>
>> Proofreading before hitting "Send" is usually of some
>> value... ;-)
>
>Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
>The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
>is 'naturally' dimensionless.
>The gravitational constant is not,
>it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2
>
>So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
>You need to assume a mass scale for that,
>
>Jan
>
>So it is not gravity that is weak,
>it is electrons and protons that are so very light.
>(wait for a TOE for explanations)
>

Point(s) taken, but every time I've seen the "strengths" of
forces compared it's been done as this article does:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-amplitude-of-a-gravitational-wave-at-the-source.861314/

It may be wrong in a strict sense, but it does make some
comparisons of effects possible.

[israel socratus]

EM force is active, gravity mass is passive and therefore
(when they interact) the coefficient 10^40 is possible.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:19:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>>On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
>>> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
>>
>>but protons don't have weight?
>>
>Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?
>>

Well?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:20:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>>. Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>
>>
>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>
>No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
>exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
>since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>

No comment? OK, no real surprise.

>
>> Even so, people have
>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>not.
>>

Missed that howler in my earlier read. Can I assume by that
comment ("...have come to accept gravity is real [s]o it
must be..."; IOW it's accepted without evidence) that you
are not one of those who accept that gravity is real? Have
you tested that opinion? Any tall buildings in your area?

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 8:20:22 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:12:21 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
> >On 6/23/2022 10:01 PM, israel socratus wrote:
> >> Gravitational wave ‘radar’
> >
> >but protons don't have weight?
> >
> Non sequitur. Plus, where did you get that silly idea?

Ideas are quantized, of course. Stupid ideas and anti-stupid ideas form in virtual pairs below the
Heisenberg limit. Mostly they then meet and annihilate, but sometimes they are given energy
by something else, and become real. That donor is Dale (have you noticed how low-energy his
posts are?) who is thus surrounded by a sea of stupid and anti-stupid ideas.

But the Rev Dale has dark enemies, and Maxwell's demon has been ordered to see that the anti-stupid ideas
never reach him.

Dale senses the actions of this demon, and thus puts a question mark at the end of all ideas that
come to him.


I await my Nobel prize in quantum theology.

And what the hell, set theory.

William Hyde

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com>:

So all that's missing is winning the Chef's Challenge... ;-)

But seriously, I'd really like to know where Dale got that
particular idea, but he's being shy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

[Repost]

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . . .
>>>. Correct?
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>
>
>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>

No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that

since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.

>
> Even so, people have
>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>not.
>
>Bill

[J. J. Lodder]

> >> >Gravity is a real weakling √ 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic fo

Whatever ratio you take a fancy too,
as long as you compare things with the same dimension,
in the particular unit system that you take a fancy too.

Have your own fun in your own way,

Jan

[israel socratus]

> > >> That should be "10^40", a slightly different ratio.
> > >>

> > >Even worse, the whole question is meaningless.
> > >The electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha,
> > >is 'naturally' dimensionless.
> > >The gravitational constant is not,
> > >it naturally has the dimension [Mass]^-2
> > >
> > >So direct comparisons are meaningless. [1]
> > >You need to assume a mass scale for that,
> > >
> > >Jan
> >

> > It may be wrong in a strict sense, but it does make some
> > comparisons of effects possible.
> Whatever ratio you take a fancy too,
> as long as you compare things with the same dimension,
> in the particular unit system that you take a fancy too.
>
> Have your own fun in your own way,
>
> Jan

-------------------
1 - Take the constant speed of light and compare things to the earth dimension.
For example: 1sec=10m, 2 sec=20m, . . . 100m = 10 sec . . ,
(that is fancy ratio, because in nature, any motion is relative)

2 - The entrance of the nail into the tree depends on the force of the blow with a hammer.
The amount of mass and energy determines the gravitational effect and the deviation
of a quantum of light from a straight path (light bending).
The relationship/ratio between EM force and gravity has the same structure.
This is a scientific ratio.
------------------

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 09:35:50 +0200, the following appeared in

>> >> >Gravity is a real weakling ? 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic fo

I usually do, but thanks for the permission.

So, no comment on the article I cited? Or *was* that a
comment on the article? It's a bit ambiguous...

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> [Repost]
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . .
>>>>. . Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>
>>
>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>
> No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
> exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
> since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>
>> Even so, people have
>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>not.
>>
>>Bill

Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
objects that together, create gravity. One massive object neither generates
nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
something.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 13:21:50 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> [Repost]
>>
>>>jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid . .
>>>>>. . Correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>>
>> No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
>> exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
>> since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>>

No comment on this, not even the usual BillWaffle? No
surprise.

>
>>> Even so, people have
>>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>>not.
>

As I noted in a later post, I missed that; here was my
response. Care to comment?
**************************************************

Missed that howler in my earlier read. Can I assume by that
comment ("...have come to accept gravity is real [s]o it
must be..."; IOW it's accepted without evidence) that you
are not one of those who accept that gravity is real? Have
you tested that opinion? Any tall buildings in your area?

**************************************************

>
>Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
>another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
>objects that together, create gravity.
>

No, but thanks for playing. Try reading about General
Relativity.

>
> One massive object neither generates
>nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
>massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
>something.
>

Nope. But please come back when you physics education has
progressed sufficiently far beyond the 10th century.

[Bill]

You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
gravity that people believe holds the universe together. By your comments
here, it's obvious that your grasp of gravity begins and ends with Newton
and you don't want to think beyond that.

Bill

[israel socratus]

Gravity = mass + energy (GRT)

[jillery]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.

People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
think is the difference?

[jillery]

There's this thing called the Gravitational constant, first identified
by Newton:

G = 6.67 x 10^-11 Newton-meters^2 per kilogram^2

This value is known to be intrinsic to all observable mass.

In order to measure G, there necessarily has to be at least one target
mass and at least one observer, by definition, which satisfies your
"two masses" word game.

Also, even Newton wasn't happy with the concept of a gravitational
"force" acting from a distance. Einstein's GR recognized that mass
and energy alter the shape of local space-time, so no spooky action at
a distance required.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>
>
> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
> think is the difference?
>

Maybe not. Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is only
one mass: the Earth itself.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, the following appeared

Really? Please be so kind as to describe what you imagine
distinguishes one form the other. Be specific.

And BTW, I really love the repeated "people believe" when
referring to the existence of gravity. Since to you it's
apparently a simple matter of belief, I have to ask once
more whether you've found that tall building yet, the one
from the roof of which you can demonstrate that it's *only*
a matter of belief.

>
> By your comments
>here, it's obvious that your grasp of gravity begins and ends with Newton
>and you don't want to think beyond that.
>

Wrong again. See my comment below re: GR. Think about why I
might have made that comment. After you've thought about it,
take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

>
>>>Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
>>>another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
>>>objects that together, create gravity.
>>>
>> No, but thanks for playing. Try reading about General
>> Relativity.
>>>
>>> One massive object neither generates
>>>nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
>>>massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
>>>something.
>>>
>> Nope. But please come back when you physics education has
>> progressed sufficiently far beyond the 10th century.
>>>

[Bob Casanova]

In no particular category:

> Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
>Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is only
>one mass: the Earth itself.

[Bill]

As you consistently demonstrate, you are satisfied with your eighth grade
science education and show no interest in thinking about it.

Bill

[israel socratus]

1915 - GRT
Rotating masses + energy of Sun create gravity effect

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>
>
> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
> think is the difference?
>

I believe that Newton's notion of gravity made gravity a force, something
that seems so obvious that there's no need to think about it. Anything on
Earth is Earth, there is nothing else. To see a thing fall means that it was
never not Earth, no need to imagine a force. Even so, it's too simple so it
must be wrong.

The universe though requires more thought for a force of gravity so any
solution will look different than one proposed for gravity on Earth. The
main point is that gravity is not a problem for physics but of thought.

Bill

[DB Cates]

On 2022-07-09 10:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> In no particular category:
>
>> Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>> object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
>> Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>> Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>> gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is only
>> one mass: the Earth itself.

...... [silent jaw drop] ..... This is one of those 'not even wrong'
things; right?

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:21:28 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

I couldn't think of a category for exactly that reason. I
didn't even include the repeated comments, delivered in a
smug tone of "the poor ignorant fools", that people
"believe in" gravity.

[jillery]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:41:35 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>
>>
>> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
>> think is the difference?
>>
>
>Maybe not.

There's no "maybe" about it.

>Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.

All one needs to stop/prevent falling is some object with sufficient
electrostatic strength to overcome the acceleration due to space-time
curvature. Some people call one such object "floor". It's almost
certain you're relying on one as you read this.

>Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is only
>one mass: the Earth itself.

You don't quantify your "up to some distance". Perhaps even you
understand the effects of gravity extend indefinitely. That's why the
Moon and Earth, the Earth and Sun, the Sun and our galaxy, all revolve
around each other. Even the dwarf planet Pluto, over 7 billion
kilometers away, perturbs the massive Sun due to its gravity.

[jillery]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 23:53:03 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>
>>
>> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
>> think is the difference?
>>
>
>I believe

What you believe doesn't inform this discussion.

>that Newton's notion of gravity made gravity a force, something
>that seems so obvious that there's no need to think about it.

Is that why Newton and many other scientists after him thought about
it anyway?

>Anything on
>Earth is Earth, there is nothing else. To see a thing fall means that it was
>never not Earth, no need to imagine a force. Even so, it's too simple so it
>must be wrong.

It's not wrong because it's simple. It's wrong because it's
incoherent. You even contradict your own claim elsethread "up to some
distance".

>The universe though requires more thought for a force of gravity so any
>solution will look different than one proposed for gravity on Earth. The
>main point is that gravity is not a problem for physics but of thought.

Actually, the main point here is you have no idea what you're talking
about and are proud of it.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:41:35 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>>
>>>
>>> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
>>> think is the difference?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe not.
>
>
> There's no "maybe" about it.
>
>
>>Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>>object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
>
>
> All one needs to stop/prevent falling is some object with sufficient
> electrostatic strength to overcome the acceleration due to space-time
> curvature. Some people call one such object "floor". It's almost
> certain you're relying on one as you read this.

So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force we
call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do is
measure it and the measurement is all there is. This is about what I've been
saying and everyone, so far, has disagreed.

>
>
>>Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>>Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>>gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is
>>only one mass: the Earth itself.
>
>
> You don't quantify your "up to some distance". Perhaps even you
> understand the effects of gravity extend indefinitely. That's why the
> Moon and Earth, the Earth and Sun, the Sun and our galaxy, all revolve
> around each other. Even the dwarf planet Pluto, over 7 billion
> kilometers away, perturbs the massive Sun due to its gravity.

Why quantify any of this? The problem is conceptual, not quantity.

Bill

>

[Glenn]

Depends on how you define the problem.
Do photons generate a gravitational field? Photons are said to be massless and pure energy. Energy is said to generate a gravitational field.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:12:28 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:41:35 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>>>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
>>>> think is the difference?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe not.
>>
>>
>> There's no "maybe" about it.
>>
>>
>>>Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>>>object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
>>
>>
>> All one needs to stop/prevent falling is some object with sufficient
>> electrostatic strength to overcome the acceleration due to space-time
>> curvature. Some people call one such object "floor". It's almost
>> certain you're relying on one as you read this.
>
>So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force we
>call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do is
>measure it and the measurement is all there is. This is about what I've been
>saying and everyone, so far, has disagreed.
>

You have a positive genius for failing to understand and
twisting statements out of recognition. Bottom line: Your
"So..." isn't so at all.

>>
>>>Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>>>Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>>>gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is
>>>only one mass: the Earth itself.
>>
>>
>> You don't quantify your "up to some distance". Perhaps even you
>> understand the effects of gravity extend indefinitely. That's why the
>> Moon and Earth, the Earth and Sun, the Sun and our galaxy, all revolve
>> around each other. Even the dwarf planet Pluto, over 7 billion
>> kilometers away, perturbs the massive Sun due to its gravity.
>
>Why quantify any of this? The problem is conceptual, not quantity.
>

Yes, the problem here does seem to by with your concept of
reality. Why don't you try to address the issues and answer
the questions raised in response to your assertions
elsethread, which you've been studiously avoiding?

[Bud Spencer]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Glenn wrote:

> Do photons generate a gravitational field?

No. There is no such thing as "photons".

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Glenn]

Tell us all about reality, Bob.

[Bill]

I haven't said that my questions about reality should be taken as fact in
opposition to, say, science. I wonder about the "facts" people accept so
easily and hope to find something worth wondering about. The vastness of the
universe and all the apparent phenomena within it seem to be sufficient for
some, enough to substitute for understanding. Counting stars and particles
and distances seem enough, why try to make sense of any of it? We just need
numbers and measurements, something quantifiable and all is well.

I believe there's more, maybe something like meaning and numbers are merely
interesting without providing answers. Those believing they have the answers
will quit looking and devote their psychic energies to becoming boring.

Bill

[Glenn]

There is no spoon. There is only the One.

[Ernest Major]

The grain of truth is that (under Newton's Theory - there might be some
more wrinkles for GR) for a spherically symmetric object the
gravitational force is equivalent to the same total mass concentrated at
the centre of the object.

But he's denying Newton's Laws of Motion. And he's claiming that
sufficiently low-flying planes have no mass, which if he wasn't denying
F=ma, would mean that very little energy would be necessary to
accelerate them to great speed.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 10/07/2022 05:53, Bill wrote:
> I believe that Newton's notion of gravity made gravity a force, something
> that seems so obvious that there's no need to think about it. Anything on
> Earth is Earth, there is nothing else. To see a thing fall means that it was
> never not Earth, no need to imagine a force. Even so, it's too simple so it
> must be wrong.

So, you are claiming than any meteoroid that will eventually strike the
earth is currently and has always been part of the earth, even if it
won't strike the earth for another billion years, and is currently
100,000 light years away?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

Did you consider reading the "it" in "means that it was never not Earth" refers to a "force"?

"Mass is the quantity of matter in a physical body. It is also a measure of the body's inertia, the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

What if Scotty is right, and the Universe is the thing that is moving, and not light?

[Glenn]

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:20:12 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

Where did you get a meteorid out of "anything on Earth is Earth", that anything that falls that is on the Earth means that this force is never not Earth (always the Earth)?
You're on the Earth when you jump off a cliff and fall. Is the Earth not responsible for your falling?

[Glenn]

Well that struck a chord. Gravity is still somewhat of a mystery. Anyone care for a plate of gravitons? There are more than one alternative theories relevant to gravity. Recently, there seems to have been a dust-up, yet the fat lady has yet to even enter stage one.

If you're interested, many links available thru this page:

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-dark-ditch-favor-theory-gravity.html

[DB Cates]

that's only true for the entirety of the spherical object. As soon as
you refer to a portion of that object, it no longer applies (even for a
perfectly symmetrical spherical object)

[Bill]

Objects beyond Earth are beyond Earth and, therefore, not Earth. You're
trying too hard to find a flaw.

Bill

[Glenn]

From the above, "This made physicists propose that an invisible substance called "dark matter" was providing extra gravitational pull" and "time to ditch dark matter" in the title.

And now for something completely different, some would have us non-scientists accept:

"University of Adelaide experts are trying to unlock the secrets of dark matter, which makes up 84% of the matter in the universe.
"We are trying to solve the problem of understanding one of the grand challenges facing modern science—how to find what type of particle dark matter is composed of," said Professor Anthony Thomas, Elder Professor of Physics, University of Adelaide."

https://phys.org/news/2022-07-dark-particle.html

I know, I know...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:02:24 -0500, the following appeared

So many words, so few answers, so little wisdom.

Find that tall building yet, the one which will allow you to
demonstrate that gravity is only a belief?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:02:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

I have better things to do with my time than to try to teach
those who refuse to learn.

[Glenn]

Shit for brains, Bill didn't exactly say that, and what you think gravity is, is unknown.

"So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force
>>>we call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do
>>>is measure it and the measurement is all there is. "

Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 15:45:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:

Your physical characteristics aren't my problem.

>
>, Bill didn't exactly say that, and what you think gravity is, is unknown.
>

Yes, he did, with every comment about gravity prefaced by
"people believe".

And what I think gravity is, is not the issue; Bill's belief
that its existence is "just a belief" is.

>
>"So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force
>>>>we call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do
>>>>is measure it and the measurement is all there is. "
>
>Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.
>

And some say that you can fly; just throw yourself at the
ground and miss. Perhaps you should join Bill on his tall
building and test that.

[Glenn]

But yours are your problem.

> >
> >, Bill didn't exactly say that, and what you think gravity is, is unknown.
> >
> Yes, he did, with every comment about gravity prefaced by
> "people believe".

What do you mean by "gravity? You don't say. Perhaps you believe it is what comes out of the business end of a chicken. I quoted Bill below, "The force we call gravity doesn't exist then"... a conditional to what gravity really is. Some do not consider gravity to be a force.
But you ignore that, and continue, time after time, to play your silly games.
But I agree with you that what you think gravity is is irrelevant.

>
> And what I think gravity is, is not the issue; Bill's belief
> that its existence is "just a belief" is.

What is "it"? It is not unreasonable to claim that belief that gravity is a force is just a belief.

> >
> >"So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force
> >>>>we call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do
> >>>>is measure it and the measurement is all there is. "
> >
> >Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.
> >
> And some say that you can fly; just throw yourself at the
> ground and miss. Perhaps you should join Bill on his tall
> building and test that.
> >

You're a sad idiot.

"Einstein argued that gravity isn't a force at all"

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-understand-einsteins-theory-of-gravity

"In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass."

https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 18:58:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

Obviously, it's the opposite of levity. Ask any Greek
playwright.

>
> You don't say. Perhaps you believe it is what comes out of the business end of a chicken. I quoted Bill below, "The force we call gravity doesn't exist then"... a conditional to what gravity really is. Some do not consider gravity to be a force.
>But you ignore that, and continue, time after time, to play your silly games.
>But I agree with you that what you think gravity is is irrelevant.
>>
>> And what I think gravity is, is not the issue; Bill's belief
>> that its existence is "just a belief" is.
>
>What is "it"? It is not unreasonable to claim that belief that gravity is a force is just a belief.
>> >

Refresh my memory; where did I refer to gravity as a
"force"?

>
>> >"So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force
>> >>>>we call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do
>> >>>>is measure it and the measurement is all there is. "
>> >
>> >Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.
>> >
>> And some say that you can fly; just throw yourself at the
>> ground and miss. Perhaps you should join Bill on his tall
>> building and test that.
>> >
>You're a sad idiot.
>

And you're a happy moron. I win.

>
>"Einstein argued that gravity isn't a force at all"
>
>https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-understand-einsteins-theory-of-gravity
>
>"In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass."
>
>https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/
>

Correct. Now try to convince Bill.

[Glenn]

Refresh my memory. Where did I claim you referred to gravity as a force?
I clearly referred to Bill, not you. "It's existence" refers to gravity, and it is not unreasonable for Bill to claim that believe that gravity is a force is just a belief.
You've so far been evasive and non responsive. I can see why you are confused.

> >
> >> >"So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force
> >> >>>>we call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do
> >> >>>>is measure it and the measurement is all there is. "
> >> >
> >> >Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.
> >> >
> >> And some say that you can fly; just throw yourself at the
> >> ground and miss. Perhaps you should join Bill on his tall
> >> building and test that.
> >> >
> >You're a sad idiot.
> >
> And you're a happy moron. I win.

You lose so far, and I don't expect that to change.

> >
> >"Einstein argued that gravity isn't a force at all"
> >
> >https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-understand-einsteins-theory-of-gravity
> >
> >"In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass."
> >
> >https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/
> >
> Correct. Now try to convince Bill.
> >

Why? That is what he said: ""So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force we call gravity doesn't exist then".

Your fecal transplants seem to be working well for you.

[israel socratus]

The gravity we feel on Earth is related to the rotation of the Earth.
Without rotation of mass+energy - no gravity.
Without rotation Earth is an empty ball in the infinite cosmic vacuum.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:56:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

>The gravity we feel on Earth is related to the rotation of the Earth.
>Without rotation of mass+energy - no gravity.
>

Sorry, but that's wrong. The only way rotation affects
(felt) gravity is by rotational acceleration (centrifugal
"force"). You're actually very slightly heavier at the poles
and lighter at the equator.

>
>Without rotation Earth is an empty ball in the infinite cosmic vacuum.
>

Poetic, but meaningless.

[jillery]

Gravity has little to do with Earth's rotation, and vice versa.
Perhaps you're thinking of some amusement park ride.

Even the weight we feel on Earth has little to do with its rotation.
Earth's rotation makes people near the equator feel an acceleration
that reduces the weight they feel. At the same time, Earth's rotation
also makes Earth itself an oblate spheroid. Which means people near
the equator also are farther away from Earth's center. Which means
gravity pulls less on them. So people near the equator feel less than
0.4% lighter than near either pole.

[jillery]

You're trying too hard to evade the flaws.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

I acknowledge there are many things about gravity that remain
unresolved. It's almost certain you will not acknowledge that Bill's
comments have nothing to do with them.

[Glenn]

It's almost certain that you're playing with your navel.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:12:28 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>

>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:41:35 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>>>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People have known these are the same thing since Newton. What do you
>>>> think is the difference?
>>>>
>>>

>>>Maybe not.
>>
>>
>> There's no "maybe" about it.
>>
>>
>>>Falling from some height is proof that whatever force pushed some
>>>object up has dissipated so that there's nothing to hold the object aloft.
>>
>>
>> All one needs to stop/prevent falling is some object with sufficient
>> electrostatic strength to overcome the acceleration due to space-time
>> curvature. Some people call one such object "floor". It's almost
>> certain you're relying on one as you read this.
>
>So the gravity we feel on Earth is due to space-time curvature? The force we
>call gravity doesn't exist then, it's a mere illusion and all we can do is
>measure it and the measurement is all there is. This is about what I've been
>saying and everyone, so far, has disagreed.
>
>>
>>

>>>Falling in this case is not due a force but the absence of a force.
>>>Everything up to some distance from the surface of the Earth is,
>>>gravitationally, part of the Earth; it has no mass of its own. There is
>>>only one mass: the Earth itself.
>>
>>
>> You don't quantify your "up to some distance". Perhaps even you
>> understand the effects of gravity extend indefinitely. That's why the
>> Moon and Earth, the Earth and Sun, the Sun and our galaxy, all revolve
>> around each other. Even the dwarf planet Pluto, over 7 billion
>> kilometers away, perturbs the massive Sun due to its gravity.
>
>Why quantify any of this?

Since you won't quantify "any of this", you had no good reason to
mention "any of this" in the first place.

>The problem is conceptual, not quantity.

The actual problem here is your willfully stupid word games.

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 02:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>It's almost certain that you're playing with your navel.

You sound jealous. Poor baby.

[Bud Spencer]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Bob Casanova wrote:

> I have better things to do with my time than to try to teach
> those who refuse to learn.

That you were told by your mentor?

Sounds about right.

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Bud Spencer]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Glenn wrote:

> Some say that gravity isn't a force, but the Earth rushing up to meet you when you jumped off that cliff and sustained brain damage, after testing your theory of gravity.

Pretty much so.

Just like so-called "magnetic attraction" is
observable thing, but the explanation for the thing is completely wrong.
There is no "magnetic attraction" as we are told, it's just mutual
acceleration towards the null pressure point that is located between the
magnets.

Same thing happens with thing we call »gravity«. There is no "pull" or
"push" or "force" ... just mutual acceleration towards the null pressure
point between two objects.

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Bud Spencer]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, Glenn wrote:

> "Einstein argued that gravity isn't a force at all"

Which is a lot from that fool and fraudster thief.

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Bud Spencer]

What kind of new age dirty hippy nonsense is this shite then? How do you
know if Earth is the one rotating?

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Bill]

You continue to confuse yourself. Falling from a tall building is not proof
of a force of gravity but of an absence of any force holding you up.

Consider this:

http://billconner.com/roundness.html

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:06:47 -0500, the following appeared

"...an absence of any force holding you up"? Why, in the
absence of gravity, would you need to be "held up"? What
would there be to make you fall? So it's "All you have to do
to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!"?

OK, you've convinced me. Since no one stupid enough to
believe what you wrote would be able to use a computer, or
even tie his own shoelaces, you really are trolling.
>
>Consider this:
>
>http://billconner.com/roundness.html
>
The sum of the wisdom from that can be summed up in this
statement: "An inch, a foot, a yard and a mile shrink as one
moves away from the equator. "

Malodorous (Maloderus?) indeed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:39:22 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 16:22:55 -0500, the following appeared

>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>

>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2022 13:21:50 -0500, the following appeared

>>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 09:49:49 -0500, the following appeared

>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>

>>>>> [Repost]
>>>>>
>>>>>>jillery wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
>>>>>>> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gravitational waves are the weakest interference in the cosmic grid .
>>>>>>>>. . . Correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That depends on what you mean by "weakest interference". They're not
>>>>>>> the same as electromagnetic light or radio waves, and so they don't
>>>>>>> interfere with each other. OTOH gravity waves detected by LIGO et al
>>>>>>> have amplitudes on the order of a fraction of a proton's diameter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's pretty much the same as saying they don't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. If they're detectable, and detected, they
>>>>> exist. Your assertion is exactly the same as claiming that
>>>>> since protons are so small they essentially don't exist.
>>>>>>
>>> No comment on this, not even the usual BillWaffle? No
>>> surprise.
>>>>
>>>>>> Even so, people have
>>>>>>come to accept gravity is real to it must be, whether it's detectable or
>>>>>>not.
>>>>
>>> As I noted in a later post, I missed that; here was my
>>> response. Care to comment?
>>> **************************************************
>>> Missed that howler in my earlier read. Can I assume by that
>>> comment ("...have come to accept gravity is real [s]o it
>>> must be..."; IOW it's accepted without evidence) that you
>>> are not one of those who accept that gravity is real? Have
>>> you tested that opinion? Any tall buildings in your area?
>>> **************************************************

>>>>
>>
>>You confuse the gravity that people believe makes things fall with the
>>gravity that people believe holds the universe together.
>>

>Really? Please be so kind as to describe what you imagine
>distinguishes one form the other. Be specific.
>
Waiting...
>
>And BTW, I really love the repeated "people believe" when
>referring to the existence of gravity. Since to you it's
>apparently a simple matter of belief, I have to ask once
>more whether you've found that tall building yet, the one
>from the roof of which you can demonstrate that it's *only*
>a matter of belief.
>>
Well?
>
>> By your comments
>>here, it's obvious that your grasp of gravity begins and ends with Newton
>>and you don't want to think beyond that.
>>
>Wrong again. See my comment below re: GR. Think about why I
>might have made that comment. After you've thought about it,
>take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
>>
>>>>Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
>>>>another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
>>>>objects that together, create gravity.
>>>>
>>> No, but thanks for playing. Try reading about General
>>> Relativity.
>>>>
>>>> One massive object neither generates
>>>>nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for single
>>>>massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes into
>>>>something.
>>>>
>>> Nope. But please come back when you physics education has
>>> progressed sufficiently far beyond the 10th century.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:18:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

OK, you got me. I read more of that, and it's obviously a
(rather clever) parody site.

Congratulations! Now piss off.

[erik simpson]

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:20:14 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
...

> OK, you've convinced me. Since no one stupid enough to
> believe what you wrote would be able to use a computer, or
> even tie his own shoelaces, you really are trolling.

...

Bingo!

[Bill]

That's kind of the point. There has to be a force pushing you away from the
Earth, there is none needed to pull you down.

> So it's "All you have to do
> to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!"?

What a great insight!

Bill

[Bill]

Your question suggests that you believe there is only one kind of gravity.
There is Newton who offered a formula for calculating what gravity does
without telling us what gravity is and there is Einstein telling us that the
geometry of space causes an appearance of gravity without any "force" of
gravity. This must mean that there is no gravity, just motion that appears
to be gravity.

Yet again your cleverness has brought you profound befuddlement.

Bill

[Bud Spencer]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Bill wrote:

> Yet again your cleverness has brought you profound befuddlement.

I must applaud for use of »befuddlement«, Sir!

Rarther suitable word to use in this context :)

--
₪ BUD ₪

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:11:50 -0500, the following appeared

>...There has to be a force pushing you away from the

>Earth, there is none needed to pull you down.
>

Been reading C.C. MacApp?

That said, you seem to have changed your fantasy. First it
was the absence of a force holding you up which makes you
fall. Now it's a force pushing you away from the Earth,
which somehow manifests as a force pushing you down (which
is now apparently why you fall).

Ya gotta keep these idiocies straight, mon!

>
>> So it's "All you have to do
>> to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!"?
>
>What a great insight!
>

Is it? I suggest you try it. I recommend the Sears Tower.

>
>
>>
>> OK, you've convinced me. Since no one stupid enough to
>> believe what you wrote would be able to use a computer, or
>> even tie his own shoelaces, you really are trolling.
>>>
>>>Consider this:
>>>
>>>http://billconner.com/roundness.html
>>>
>> The sum of the wisdom from that can be summed up in this
>> statement: "An inch, a foot, a yard and a mile shrink as one
>> moves away from the equator. "
>>
>> Malodorous (Maloderus?) indeed.
>>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:20:31 -0500, the following appeared

And yet you seem to be the one who insists there are
multiple kinds of gravity, but is unable to state what they
are; befuddlement seems to be your forte, not mine.

And you should probably note that there is no difference in
effect between Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian warping of
space caused by matter; the same equations apply to both.

Oh, and motion is irrelevant to both, so you can abandon
that ruby-colored fish.

>
>Bill
>
>>>
>>>And BTW, I really love the repeated "people believe" when
>>>referring to the existence of gravity. Since to you it's
>>>apparently a simple matter of belief, I have to ask once
>>>more whether you've found that tall building yet, the one
>>>from the roof of which you can demonstrate that it's *only*
>>>a matter of belief.
>>>>
>> Well?
>>>

<Nothing>

So, it's still just a "belief"; physical reality isn't
involved?

>
>>>> By your comments
>>>>here, it's obvious that your grasp of gravity begins and ends with Newton
>>>>and you don't want to think beyond that.
>>>>
>>>Wrong again. See my comment below re: GR. Think about why I
>>>might have made that comment. After you've thought about it,
>>>take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
>>>>
>>>>>>Gravity is the alleged force through which one massive object attracts
>>>>>>another. This necessarily means that there must be at least two massive
>>>>>>objects that together, create gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, but thanks for playing. Try reading about General
>>>>> Relativity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One massive object neither generates
>>>>>>nor responds to gravity and that must mean there is no gravity for
>>>>>>single massive objects. It's cosmic alchemy where nothing transmutes
>>>>>>into something.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. But please come back when you physics education has
>>>>> progressed sufficiently far beyond the 10th century.
>>>>>>

[Bill]

I was on the verge of thinking you must be an idiot but I decided it may be
that you're just not paying attention. Either way I feel charitable enough
to reply instead of just shaking my head in despair.

I mentioned no force pushing you down.

Bill

[erik simpson]

Are you in any way connected to the Church of the SubGenius?

[Bill]

The answer cannot be revealed to this generation but, might, possibly, be
known to those who asked at a much earlier time. Then again, maybe not ...

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:02:26 +0300, Bud Spencer <b...@campo.verano.it>
wrote:

Bud and Glenn and Freon Bill share an odd notion of reality, that it
contradicts known evidence and has none to support it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:09:50 +0300, Bud Spencer <b...@campo.verano.it>
wrote:

Rotation has minimal effect on how gravity is felt. Which means Bud's
question is non-sequitur, and Socratus' comments are non-sense.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:21:30 -0500, the following appeared

Nice troll. Stupid and forgetful of your own statements and
of their implications, of course, but that's to be expected.

And don't shake your head too vigorously; what passes for
your brain might slip out through your ear canal.

>
>I mentioned no force pushing you down.
>

No, Sparky, you said that you fall in the absence of a force
holding you up. I realize it's quite a stretch for what
passes for your mind, but in that scenario a force pushing
you down is implied, else you'd just hover. Or do you just
fall because it's in your nature to fall, as you post
idiocies because it's in your nature to do so?

>
>Bill
>
>
>>
>> Ya gotta keep these idiocies straight, mon!
>>>
>>>> So it's "All you have to do
>>>> to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!"?
>>>
>>>What a great insight!
>>>
>> Is it? I suggest you try it. I recommend the Sears Tower.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, you've convinced me. Since no one stupid enough to
>>>> believe what you wrote would be able to use a computer, or
>>>> even tie his own shoelaces, you really are trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>>Consider this:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://billconner.com/roundness.html
>>>>>
>>>> The sum of the wisdom from that can be summed up in this
>>>> statement: "An inch, a foot, a yard and a mile shrink as one
>>>> moves away from the equator. "
>>>>
>>>> Malodorous (Maloderus?) indeed.
>>>>>

[jillery]

Consider this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion>
****************************
A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight
line, unless acted upon by a force.
****************************

An "absence of force" can't cause you to fall down. At most, said
absence would leave you motionless. In order to fall down, there must
be something accelerating you toward the center of the Earth. That
something is Earth's mass. You are constantly accelerating toward the
center of the Earth. The weight that you feel on your brain while
sitting is a consequence of that acceleration.

[jillery]

To the contrary, it's your sophistry that brings you to willful
stupidity. Your "this must mean" actually means you have no idea what
you're talking about and are proud of it.

Einstein did not refer to the "appearance of gravity". You made that
up. GR shows that the geometry of space is the cause of gravity.
Newton described how gravity behaved to good approximation. Einstein
improved on Newton's how, and explained why gravity behaves that way.

<snip remaining of what you ignored>

[israel socratus]

Does the rotation of planets/stars affect their gravity?
Would life exist without the rotation of the Earth?

[jillery]

Your questions in this topic conflate gravity with its effects.
There's a difference.

[erik simpson]

May the Slack be with you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

>Does the rotation of planets/stars affect their gravity?
>

No. It does, however, affect the way gravity is perceived on
the surface of such rotating bodies.

>
>Would life exist without the rotation of the Earth?
>

Aside from the issue of temperature, as on a tide-locked
planet, why wouldn't it? And even there it could exist in
areas near the terminator, where the temperature would be
moderate and liquid water could exist.

[israel socratus]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 9:00:14 AM UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
> >Does the rotation of planets/stars affect their gravity?
> >
> No. It does, however, affect the way gravity is perceived on
> the surface of such rotating bodies.
> >
> >Would life exist without the rotation of the Earth?
> >
> Aside from the issue of temperature, as on a tide-locked
> planet, why wouldn't it? And even there it could exist in
> areas near the terminator, where the temperature would be
> moderate and liquid water could exist.

> Bob C.
--------------------------
Without rotation, the Earth will lose its clouds, its water, its air . . .

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 21:43:01 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Does the rotation of planets/stars affect their gravity?
>>Would life exist without the rotation of the Earth?
>
>
> Your questions in this topic conflate gravity with its effects.
> There's a difference.
>

Gravity is only its effects.

Bill