"Is There a Force of Gravity?"
Toob
In undergraduate physics, the Newtonian concept of an attractive force
between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses divided by
the square of their separation is taught. When one advances to the more
advanced concepts of gravitational theory as posed by General Relativity,
the concept seems to change to where what we experience as a force is really
the result of an inertial acceleration in "space-time".
It behooves us then to examine that concept in detail. Consider two
points on the Earth, perhaps London, England and Melbourne, Australia. In
both of these cities, observers experience a downward "pull " towards the
Earth's center. (We can ignore the centrifugal acceleration caused by
Earth's rotation since, at the most, it represents only 0.3% of the Earth's
gravitational acceleration and consider the Earth to be a closed system for
the purposes of the discussion, all velocities and accelerations are
relative to the center of the Earth and, since both London and Melbourne are
nominally at the same elevation which does not change, considerations of
time dilation in the gravitational field are irrelevant. These
clarifications are required because a pair of individuals whose thinking
processes were limited attempted clouds the discussion by introducing them
in response to a previous posting.) Inertial acceleration is defined as the
second derivative of position with respect to time, and since London and
Melbourne are within the closed reference frame represented by the Earth
they do not change their separation with respect to each other but they do
experience the force of gravity as acting in essentially opposite
directions. Since are observed not to undergo spatial acceleration with
respect to each other and the center of the Earth, that observed force of
gravity CANNOT result from an inertial acceleration. It can only result from
an actual force attracting those cities towards the Earth's center in
accordance with the classical Newtonian concept of gravity. It cannot result
from a spatial acceleration in "space-time" as is asserted by specious
interpretations of both Special and General Relativity. The force is REAL.
It is much more than a mathematical abstraction!
In response to a previous posting of this material, the writer received
an E-Mail claiming that the writer was in error. It asserted that Melbourne
and London were really in a "flattened" orbits around the center of the
Earth and experienced the "force" if gravity because they were restrained
from following their null geodesic orbits by the Earth's surface. What
appeared to be the "force" of gravity resulted from that restraint because
it prevented these two cities from following their null geodesic path? This
is a rather frivolous response. If the cities were to fall through the
Earth, the inertial force produced by the resulting second derivative of
position with respect to time and the gravitational force would cancel and
the cities would experience no net force. The attractive force that they
actually experience verifies that gravitational force and inertial
acceleration are different phenomena describing TWO effects, gravitational
attraction and inertial acceleration. There is no way of avoiding the
conclusion that the former applies a force as the result of the proximity of
masses and inertial acceleration applies a force as a result of the second
derivative of position with respect to time. It is only in the never-never
world which mathematics allows one to be foolish enough to consider that
they were different aspects of the same phenomena.
As a digression, the interchange of electric and magnetic energy in a
resonant circuit is conventionally treated as a single phenomena and treated
by a single set of mathematics, as is the interchange of potential energy
and kinetic energy when an object is in orbit. In actuality, in the resonant
circuit, the energy is alternately stored in a capacitor as an electric
stress in its dielectric and is stored in the inductor in its magnetic lines
of force. The actions of both of these devices are independently described
by their own mathematical laws. It is only when they are connected together
do their laws combine to provide an action we experience as resonance in
which energy is cyclicly interchanged between the two devices. I can hold a
charged capacitor in one hand and an inductor in the other hand. It is only
when they are connected together that resonance occurs. The same conculsion
holds true for gravitation. Gravitation forces and acceleration forces are
independent effects which, when coupled, account for orbits as if a single
process were involved. The orbital motion results from the cyclical
interchange of energy between the two independent effects.
Mathematics is a useful tool, but it seems to have been forgotten that
it is only a tool, it should never be used as a substitute for the
intelligence needed to understand of the "mechanism(s)" involved. Physics
seems to be the only science that attempts to abolish "mechanism" and rely
solely on mathematics and experiment. This probably results from the fact
that understanding the "mechanisms" which are involved requires an innate
talent that probably cannot be taught in schools and is as rare as the
musical aptitude which allows an individual to play a violin in Carnegie
Hall. It is no wonder that physicists work so hard to relegate the idea of
"mechanism" to the trash bin of history. It avoids the embarrassment of
admitting that they do not understand their subject.
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Henry Haapalainen
You say that the force is real. Now you do not think. The size of our home
galaxy is about 100.000 light years, and gravity must work between galaxies,
too. What kind of interaction would be needed to explain that kind of a
force? But you are right, that some new explanation is needed.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/henry.haapalainen/gravity.htm
Henry Haapalainen
"Toob" <to...@isp.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:31bf8$4566f2d4$d8080ee3$31...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Autymn D. C.
Phenomena is plural!
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> To Toob
>
> You say that the force is real. Now you do not think. The size of our home
> galaxy is about 100.000 light years, and gravity must work between galaxies,
> too. What kind of interaction would be needed to explain that kind of a
> force? But you are right, that some new explanation is needed.
>
> http://www.kolumbus.fi/henry.haapalainen/gravity.htm
Snip long posts, retarded Henry! Learn how to use a proper thousands
còmma. Our galaxy is not 100 liht-years in size.
>You will win 1000 US dollars if you can come up with an argument that invalidates this theory of gravity as falling space, either completely or a major part of it. For example, you may find an inconsistency or a claim that contradicts an experimental result.
The reward will be paid to the first person with a valid argument. If
you doubt this, let me tell you something about myself. I am 61 years
old, I publish four magazines, and I am quite well known in Finland. My
reputation would not allow me to break my promise.<
When I was 12, I had the thoht that gravity arose as explodent matter,
with the universe's expansion as previdence.. Now, can you invalidare
that?
What are your magazins and how are you well known?
>The great physicist Isaac Newton created a mathematical model of gravity, and it is still in use. The basic idea is that masses attract each other, and there must be a force between them.
What kind of a mechanism is needed to make that possible? We need
interaction between all the atoms in the universe, each atom being in
connection with all the other atoms, all the time and immediately, at
the speed of a thought.
If we understand this we know that the model cannot have anything to do
with reality. So, a better explanation was needed.<
The speed of a thoht is not even the speed of sound, and is hardly
immediately.
>Curvature of space was a brilliant idea. Gravity is not an attraction between masses. Objects in space are in free-fall, and there is no force acting on them. Falling in gravity field is relative acceleration, not real. Objects are moving straight ahead with constant speeds. It is space, that is not "straight".
But there are problems, too. When we drop a coin, is it falling because
time passes differently on it's upper and bottom sides? We ought to
believe this if we believe Einstein's explanation for curvature of
space. And the biggest question is the reason for curvature.
Einsteinian gravity needs an interaction mechanism between
gravitational mass and space around it. We still need something that
can have an influence at the speed of a thought.<
It's space-time, rather, that is not straiht. Space is still straiht
with respect to itself, and to greater spaces, as is time and to its
greater time. Speed is holden up to celerity as a limit, so it's
speed/velocity/momentum/work/ènèrjy/temperature that is squished and
stretched with respect to itself and its greater parameters.
However, I may see a flaw with GR's rational, again: If gravital force
is nouht as acceleration is nouht if gravital mass is inertial mass,
then as no normal inertial mass is experienced by a body as it drifts
by a worldline, then the equation collapses to no mass and thus there
is no categoric proof that no acceleration nor force is involved in
gravity: F = 0a and not 0 = m0. There is no rational to accept that
hefts fall in the shortest path--this is even a tèknic booboo: Their
path is neither shortest nor longest, but the middest, only, and onely
path. From the mid-path one can then deduce a subspace and supspace.
>Objects in gravity field are not really falling, and there is no force acting on them. Only possible explanation is, that space itself is falling. It falls into a gravitational mass, more specific into a proton of an atom. Objects only seem to be falling, but their acceleration is relative, not real. The falling of space is the reason for the curving of space. Objects are moving straight ahead with constant speeds.<
This should be old stuff by now a'seeing as I wrote two or three
submissions to these newsgroups that explains all fields and charges or
whits and motes coidentical with the particul, which includs its space
and time. Distance is the same as size, and no space or time may bode
where a body is not. In short, anoth, I eliminatd action-at-a-distance
and made your falling space obsolete.
>Since gravity and the atom are two sides of the same thing, and one cannot exist without another, this leads to following: Free protons or free electrons do not exist.
An electric current has been explained as a movement of so-called free
electrons. That explanation is impossible. What happens in a conductor
in which there is a charge? How does it differ from a conductor in
which there is no charge? Any theory is incorrect if it cannot answer
this basic question.<
Motes are free if they bear greater cinetic than potential ènèrjy.
They needn't be outside the field of that potential, as they already
exhibit a hupèrvòla.
>Aether does not exist. As said before, aether means an absolutely still background, that you can compare the motions of celestial bodies to. This applies to rotation, too.
In some galaxies, star revolution speeds have been observed that seem
contrary to the laws of gravity. The outermost stars may remain
stationary relative to the galactic centre, or revolve in the wrong
direction. No rational explanation has been found, so people have
started to look for dark matter in space. That would be matter
invisible to measuring equipment. It does not mean black holes but a
widely dispersed mass outside of galaxies. However, those controversial
observations have a simple explanation, and dark matter is not needed.
We must recall the MM experiment a century ago that proved the
inexistence of aether. What could we compare the galaxy revolution
speed to, if not the aether! If we set our equipment to rotate at a
suitable speed, we can see that all the stars in the observed galaxy
revolve in the same direction and at speeds conforming to the laws of
gravity.<
No, æther is the background against motions of ènèrjy, not matter.
Everyone assumd that æther is straiht as a ideal space so that one
would use it as a ruler, but it's not--æther must be as complex as all
the motions that all bodies in it happer. Thus, it describs the field
and not the space. The field is the new word for the æther.
QED
I should offer a overdue addendum to my anminder that black holes do
not hav superluminal escape velocities, in my list of physicists'
mistakes here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c8009ee5ab49ac0a/5c12752e1fc99ddc?#5c12752e1fc99ddc>.
I already had sticklers with black holes and the conservation of
momentum inside and outside the event hòrizòn, as in why could matter
not jump out like with every other body. Now with further thoht I'm
leffed with this chilling problem: How can black holes form /at all/?
(not "ever", "at all").
The BH is a body whose escape velocity at some finite radius, the
Schwarzschild radius, is greater than celerity. This need not be
gravital--any force will do--and elèctric BHs are also predicted for
overheavy nuclei (Z>137) that exert the strongest elèctric force to
drive the inner elèctròns "greater" than celerity. However,
even-heavier nuclei are predicted because the speed-span relation is
naïvely classic! The radius inputs the initial rest mass and
"predicts" where the other body gains the cinetics to drift at
celerity, but classicly! It doesn't see that the body gains
mass-ènèrjy to disqualify its speed from celerity and shrink the EH's
radius; it can only reach celerity if it gains infinite ènèrjy, which
must be supplied by the BH that it /hasn't/. In other words, black
holes cannot support event hòrizòns because they hav finite ènèrjy.
I cannot find corroborant mentions:
<http://google.com/search?q=%22Schwarzschild+radius+is+classical%22+OR+%22event+horizon+is+classical%22>.
Could there be a deeper loophole? Like, maybe the EH is a de Sitter
hòrizòn that shows up when flyby speed is greater than celerity, but
that would be temporary after the junk falls into the black hole and
/hits/ in finite time! The frozeth near the rim is only for apparent
time; Hawking, the dumbass, didn't clear up that the body falls in at
normal speed. Still, takene all of the above, the body should still be
abil to dive into the hole and back out again if it hasn't anything to
radiat into; that is, it conservs momentum.
-Aut
fitz
The only problem I have is accepting Newton's concept of gravity that
needs to be constantly corrected by general relativity.
Here's what I mean:
http://www.amperefitz.com/3dec2006.htm
http://www.amperefitz.com/26nov2006.html
Fitz