Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

In the following discussion I am going to lay out the case that what
has been called ‘the fourth force field of the universe' which is ‘the
gravitational field' is a theoretical scientific fiction, which is to
say that the ‘gravitational field' does not exist. Anyone who is
familiar with problems in science over the course of the 20th century
would know that the gravitational force field is sitting in isolation
upon some shelf awaiting a solution which would somehow make this
field consistent with Quantum Mechanics (the mathematics produces a
kind of infinite loop which cannot be resolved using such techniques
as ‘renormalization'). If the gravitational field is a scientific
fiction then it follows from this that the endless fruitless search
for a theory of ‘Quantum Gravity' is just a wild goose chase.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...y_fiction.html

A summary of the Unified Field Theory
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics.html

"bkh99" wrote in message
...
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

Negatory, old buddy ... the Earth sucks ...

On Oct 18, 3:22*pm, bkh99 wrote:
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

In the following discussion I am going to lay out the case that what
has been called ‘the fourth force field of the universe' which is ‘the
gravitational field' is a theoretical scientific fiction, which is to
say that the ‘gravitational field' does not exist. *Anyone who is
familiar with problems in science over the course of the 20th century
would know that the gravitational force field is sitting in isolation
upon some shelf awaiting a solution which would somehow make this
field consistent with Quantum Mechanics (the mathematics produces a
kind of infinite loop which cannot be resolved using such techniques
as ‘renormalization'). *If the gravitational field is a scientific
fiction then it follows from this that the endless fruitless search
for a theory of ‘Quantum Gravity' is just a wild goose chase.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...y_fiction.html

A summary of the Unified Field Theoryhttp://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics.html

If nothing else, the force of gravity is so weak that it's hardly
worth mentioning.

A "Unified Field Theory" would be nice, because that might better
explain how a planet or a moon can become associated with another body
other than whatever was originally created at the exact same time and
place.

Removing the "matter based field" of gravity would greatly help, even
though a force of gravity might still coexist in much the same as
secondary/recoil photons exist.

~ BG

There is a litmus test for any viable theory of the *cause* of
gravity. Actually the test consists of two parts:
1.) Supernovae and hypernovae. Does the theory explain (not describe)
the literal mechanism powering the stellar collapse that drives the
fusion that rebounds as a SN (or HN) blast? (We're not talking about
describing fusion processes which are well understood.) When the core
fusion cascade abruptly shuts off at iron, what *very real*, ever-
present force from without literally initiates and POWERS the
collapse?
2.) Quasars. Does the theory explain (not just describe) the *very
real* and continuous force that powers and sustains the far more
energetic process of a quasar?

Before the discovery of super/hypernovae and quasars, gravity could be
described variously by its perceived *effects* like "curvature of
space", "fictitious force", 'transfer particles' (gravitons) that
mysteriously reach up and pull stuff down, etc. But now with the
advent of SN/HN and quasars, those *descriptions of effects* can no
longer suffice. What is the very real, causal mechanism behind those
effects?
oc

HadH pLEASE GIVE US WHAT A FIELD IS. ? bERT

On Oct 19, 5:37*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
HadH *pLEASE GIVE US WHAT A FIELD IS. ? *bERT

The field of gravity is pretty insignificant, as more of a weak
reaction rather than original cause.

A molecule of water or any other known element doesn't require or
otherwise depend upon the weak force of gravity. However, like
secondary/recoil photons, the extremely weak force of gravity should
still have an affect, especially when trillions upon trillions of such
molecules gather because of the strong forces that'll exist within any
given volume.

~ BG

On Oct 19, 5:12*am, jughead wrote:
There is a litmus test for any viable theory of the *cause* of
gravity. Actually the test consists of two parts:
1.) Supernovae and hypernovae. Does the theory explain (not describe)
the literal mechanism powering the stellar collapse that drives the
fusion that rebounds as a SN (or HN) blast? (We're not talking about
describing fusion processes which are well understood.) When the core
fusion cascade abruptly shuts off at iron, what *very real*, ever-
present force from without literally initiates and POWERS the
collapse?
2.) Quasars. Does the theory explain (not just describe) the *very
real* and continuous force that powers and sustains the far more
energetic process of a quasar?

Before the discovery of super/hypernovae and quasars, gravity could be
described variously by its perceived *effects* like "curvature of
space", "fictitious force", 'transfer particles' (gravitons) that
mysteriously reach up and pull stuff down, etc. But now with the
advent of SN/HN and quasars, those *descriptions of effects* can no
longer suffice. What is the very real, causal mechanism behind those
effects?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * oc

Try this analogy out for size:
When water is exposed to the lunar environment, especially on the
daytime heated portion, regardless of whatever self imposed gravity
that may or may not exist between such molecules of h2o, whereas those
individual molecules of h2o quickly become purely individual atoms of
hydrogen and oxygen before those too seem to vanish by breaking down
into subatomic particles that are rather easily associated with other
particles and/or summarily blown away.

~ BG

Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

First of all, I'm no physicist. Just thought I should make that clear.
=)

I think "the gravity field" exists, at least, in the sense that it is
a useful and accurate tool for describing a system. It's 'reality'
should matter little to us beyond this. Ultimately, though, I think
Einstein's characterization that gravity is equivalent to a warping of
space-time is most accurate. At any rate, both analogies agree with
experiment, so the answer is essentially 'yes', it does in fact exist.

On Oct 22, 8:54*am, Sebastian Garth wrote:
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

First of all, I'm no physicist. Just thought I should make that clear.
=)

I think "the gravity field" exists, at least, in the sense that it is
a useful and accurate tool for describing a system. It's 'reality'
should matter little to us beyond this. Ultimately, though, I think
Einstein's characterization that gravity is equivalent to a warping of
space-time is most accurate. At any rate, both analogies agree with
experiment, so the answer is essentially 'yes', it does in fact exist.

Correct, the weak force of gravity could be nearly meaningless, though
obviously a secondary/recoil reaction kind of force none the less.
Once a given item such as Earth is comprised of enough bazillions upon
bazillions of those atoms is where that otherwise extremely weak force
takes on meaning. However, if Earth was a ball of hydrogen gas, or
worse yet a thin shell of a hollow planet that's mostly displaced by
an interior of hot hydrogen and helium gas is where the notions of
gravity gets more than a little thin, and even reversed within that
hollow sphere.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ell2.html#wtls

The zero delta-V and extreme vacuum (thus minimal local gravity) of
Selene L1 (earth-moon L1) is even more special. Too bad we still do
not have any platform of science instruments within that zero delta-V
location.

~ BG

On Oct 18, 3:22*pm, bkh99 wrote:
Does the 'Gravitational Field' really exist?

In the following discussion I am going to lay out the case that what
has been called ‘the fourth force field of the universe' which is ‘the
gravitational field' is a theoretical scientific fiction, which is to
say that the ‘gravitational field' does not exist. *Anyone who is
familiar with problems in science over the course of the 20th century
would know that the gravitational force field is sitting in isolation
upon some shelf awaiting a solution which would somehow make this
field consistent with Quantum Mechanics (the mathematics produces a
kind of infinite loop which cannot be resolved using such techniques
as ‘renormalization'). *If the gravitational field is a scientific
fiction then it follows from this that the endless fruitless search
for a theory of ‘Quantum Gravity' is just a wild goose chase.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...y_fiction.html

A summary of the Unified Field Theoryhttp://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/new_physics.html

The extremely weak force of gravity needs a little help from other
much stronger forces.

Try this physics-101 analogy out for size:
When any volume of water is exposed to the lunar environment, and
especially on the daytime heated portion that’s so physically dark,
regardless of whatever local or self imposed gravity of Newtonian
binding force that may or may not exist between those molecules of
h2o, whereas these individual molecules will quickly vaporize and
become purely individual atoms of hydrogen and oxygen (no chance of
their forming into raw ice or remaining as liquid), shortly before
those too seem to vanish by further breaking down into subatomic
particles that are rather easily associated with all those other solar
wind and cosmic particles that usually far exceed the lunar escape
velocity, and thereby summarily blown/extracted away by the persistent
flux of our solar and cosmic wind, all because of the insufficient
local and molecular gravity, as well as there’s obviously too little
surrounding pressure at 3e-15 bar.

Within our Selene/moon L1 is where the extreme vacuum of that nifty
Zero Delta-V location is likely worth 3e-21 bar or less (a millionth
the pressure of what the lunar surface has to offer), that’s always
assisted by the continuous 2e20 N/sec of tidal force. Obviously
there’s always the passing solar and cosmic flux that’s continually
populating this nearby Zero Delta-V location.

If the Newtonian force from Earth didn’t exist, that same distance
from the moon (roughly 34r) would only realize a pressure of 2.6e-18
bar. Also interesting to note, is if the moon had the same mass as
Earth it would only amount to a surface atmospheric pressure of
1.81e-14 bar.

Too bad that after a half century and counting, we still have nothing
of any science platform interactively situated within that absolutely
nifty and easily established location.

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”