A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Solar
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is Gravity?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th 08, 02:58 PM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism, gac.physics.astronomy, alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy, sci.astro.planetarium
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 77
Default What is Gravity?

On Jan 23, 2:19*pm, wrote:
(Rolf Guthmann) wrote:

New law of gravitation?
Power LawGravity?
What is gravity?
What is its cause or source?
Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle,
but no one has yet been fully successful.


Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation
of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
the annals of conventional science because
up until Mr. S D Rodrian pointed out how it is
that the universe really works NO ONE could
have possibly even imagined how gravity
works, nor what the devil gravity really "is."
[Newton merely wrote out a formal set of rules
covering how gravity appears to be working
--up/down-- "why inertia (mass)" was a complete
& utter mystery to Newton. And Einstein merely
expanded this same exercise of "drawing up
the rules on how gravity appears to act" into
a more useful, and therefore more accurate,
formal geometrical language... neither one of
which explain anything whatever about gravity.]

All this "dancing around the answer people were
really after" was because since the beginning of
time observers had believed that "masses" were
"somehow" attracting each other (and therefore
that "eventually" some sort of "graviton"would
be discovered *[today's infamous quest for mythic
"gravity waves" and a "magical particle" which
imparts "inertia/mass" to all the other particles]...
futile quests, of course, because gravity is NOT
the result of "masses" attracting each other but
is in fact merely/solely/only "the way in which
the universe is moving." As fully explained in the
following text fromhttp://physics.sdrodrian.com

All anyone needs is a grasp of Newton's original
laws of motion to understand, once and for all, why
mass/why inertia exists at all. And it has nothing
whatsoever to do with any "magical" particle:

* * * *Gravity As Thermodynamics:
*The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their
own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be
sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,
unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart
enough to understand the universe but that they are
too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they
instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up
overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)
illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of
literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability
of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing
else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that
inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to
usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does
not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,
a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship
between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with
the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path
of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my
knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive
explanation of the universe in terms of the
inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly
how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the
inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon
it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

* *There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the
* *mystified.

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition
against the creation/destruction of "energy," as
embodied in the question of what could have "been
there" before there was a universe of visible matter.
And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the
one which allows us to inquire into levels of
existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an
abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply
across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some
of them while not at others [including the statistical
research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to
"believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"
objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of
"matter" alone as the only "solid material" that
"exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps
telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"
existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)
that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always
insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the
only thing which really exists") is "momentary"
matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."
["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]
Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter
is an "illusion" created by interactions between the
electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear
forces."

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different
than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"
sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your
own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are
in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and
the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other
"forms")... none of which has any relevance to the
question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too
ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"
(so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be
torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")
without this having any bearing whatsoever on the
question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,
the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are
made). And this holds true even if the forms are
imposed on you by the universe rather than your
imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous
theorists from following the line of inquiry we are
taking he Just as it was only after mankind finally
accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not
the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the
universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the
greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it
is only when we finally give up the human prejudice
that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are
the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with
whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or
that there are even such things), that it then becomes
possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

* *This notion that there exist "immutable and
* *indivisible objects with whose destruction
* *existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human
* *superstition which should have been dropped once it
* *was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an
* *indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer
* *tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in
* *quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such
* *indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was
mulling why it might be that, given the existence of
gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of
"fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to
consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not
produce anything other than the "forms of matter"
always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the
universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby
"larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve
(or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)
into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics
might have been spared the last hundred years'
nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd
(with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"
science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected
discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are
receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate
depending on their distances) could have been
understood for what it really is --a clear reflection
on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower
forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is
necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between
themselves. [As well as hinting that there might
indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in
the universe... by which (against which) all eternally
shifting local effects might be measured.]

* *Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific
proposition that there is no fundamental difference
between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some
may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that
they are but merely two levels of the same single
process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders
of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately
there are only "relative differences" in "densities"
(or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental
shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that
from "non-existence" to "existence."

* *Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly
* *the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what
* *it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that
* *ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only
* *the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it
* *from one form/value/concentration to another
* *"equality."

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the
primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense
of "a given energy value") can never have been an
all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead
always been an entirely relativistic "state") because
otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a
"leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it
has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a
clear violation of the ...

read more »


oc Was there a word for Earth's attraction? Or did Newton coin the
word when the apple hit him on the head? We feel the force of gracity
the moment we fall out of the womb. Sunbeam+Bert
  #2  
Old February 14th 08, 05:09 AM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy,sci.astro.planetarium
Mr. Garrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default What is Gravity?


oc Was there a word for Earth's attraction? Or did Newton coin the
word when the apple hit him on the head? We feel the force of gracity
the moment we fall out of the womb. Sunbeam+Bert


how many points does this moron get?
  #3  
Old February 14th 08, 11:21 PM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy,sci.astro.planetarium
Hagar[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default What is Gravity?


"Mr. Garrison" wrote in message
...

oc Was there a word for Earth's attraction? Or did Newton coin the
word when the apple hit him on the head? We feel the force of gracity
the moment we fall out of the womb. Sunbeam+Bert


how many points does this moron get?


After a few chilled Bud Lights old Beeert can get quite philosophical.
The force of "gracity" ... hmmm, that's being able to stagger drunk from the
living room to the bed without falling down.


  #4  
Old June 9th 08, 11:20 PM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy,sci.astro.planetarium
>
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default What is Gravity?


wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 2:19 pm, wrote:
(Rolf Guthmann) wrote:
www.doorloadingservices.co.uk

New law of gravitation?
Power LawGravity?
What is gravity?
What is its cause or source?
Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle,
but no one has yet been fully successful.


Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation
of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
the annals of conventional science because
up until Mr. S D Rodrian pointed out how it is
that the universe really works NO ONE could
have possibly even imagined how gravity
works, nor what the devil gravity really "is."
[Newton merely wrote out a formal set of rules
covering how gravity appears to be working
--up/down-- "why inertia (mass)" was a complete
& utter mystery to Newton. And Einstein merely
expanded this same exercise of "drawing up
the rules on how gravity appears to act" into
a more useful, and therefore more accurate,
formal geometrical language... neither one of
which explain anything whatever about gravity.]

All this "dancing around the answer people were
really after" was because since the beginning of
time observers had believed that "masses" were
"somehow" attracting each other (and therefore
that "eventually" some sort of "graviton"would
be discovered [today's infamous quest for mythic
"gravity waves" and a "magical particle" which
imparts "inertia/mass" to all the other particles]...
futile quests, of course, because gravity is NOT
the result of "masses" attracting each other but
is in fact merely/solely/only "the way in which
the universe is moving." As fully explained in the
following text fromhttp://physics.sdrodrian.com

All anyone needs is a grasp of Newton's original
laws of motion to understand, once and for all, why
mass/why inertia exists at all. And it has nothing
whatsoever to do with any "magical" particle:

Gravity As Thermodynamics:
The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their
own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be
sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,
unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart
enough to understand the universe but that they are
too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they
instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up
overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)
illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of
literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability
of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing
else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that
inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to
usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does
not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,
a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship
between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with
the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path
of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my
knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive
explanation of the universe in terms of the
inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly
how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the
inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon
it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the
mystified.

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition
against the creation/destruction of "energy," as
embodied in the question of what could have "been
there" before there was a universe of visible matter.
And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the
one which allows us to inquire into levels of
existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an
abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply
across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some
of them while not at others [including the statistical
research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to
"believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"
objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of
"matter" alone as the only "solid material" that
"exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps
telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"
existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)
that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always
insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the
only thing which really exists") is "momentary"
matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."
["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]
Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter
is an "illusion" created by interactions between the
electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear
forces."

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different
than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"
sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your
own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are
in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and
the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other
"forms")... none of which has any relevance to the
question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too
ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"
(so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be
torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")
without this having any bearing whatsoever on the
question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,
the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are
made). And this holds true even if the forms are
imposed on you by the universe rather than your
imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous
theorists from following the line of inquiry we are
taking he Just as it was only after mankind finally
accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not
the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the
universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the
greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it
is only when we finally give up the human prejudice
that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are
the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with
whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or
that there are even such things), that it then becomes
possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

This notion that there exist "immutable and
indivisible objects with whose destruction
existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human
superstition which should have been dropped once it
was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an
indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer
tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in
quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such
indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was
mulling why it might be that, given the existence of
gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of
"fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to
consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not
produce anything other than the "forms of matter"
always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the
universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby
"larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve
(or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)
into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics
might have been spared the last hundred years'
nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd
(with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"
science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected
discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are
receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate
depending on their distances) could have been
understood for what it really is --a clear reflection
on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower
forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is
necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between
themselves. [As well as hinting that there might
indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in
the universe... by which (against which) all eternally
shifting local effects might be measured.]

Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific
proposition that there is no fundamental difference
between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some
may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that
they are but merely two levels of the same single
process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders
of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately
there are only "relative differences" in "densities"
(or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental
shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that
from "non-existence" to "existence."

Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly
the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what
it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that
ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only
the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it
from one form/value/concentration to another
"equality."

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the
primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense
of "a given energy value") can never have been an
all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead
always been an entirely relativistic "state") because
otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a
"leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it
has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a
clear violation of the ...

read more »


oc Was there a word for Earth's attraction? Or did Newton coin the
word when the apple hit him on the head? We feel the force of gracity
the moment we fall out of the womb. Sunbeam+Bert


  #5  
Old June 11th 08, 05:22 PM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy,sci.astro.planetarium
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default What is Gravity?

Blah, blah, blah...

As usual, the baboons are
on the wrong question.

There was once a report that some
guys (Wright by name) were doing some
serious stuff with heavier-then-air
flight. And a major newspaper reporter
was dispatched to check on it. Well,
he couldn't find the right (Wright) place;
so he stopped to ask directions from
a farmer. And, suddenly, as they were
talking, the Wright's plane swooped by
over them. Astonished, the reported cried
out: "What the hell was THAT?!?!" To
which the farmer replied, "Oh, that's just
one of them Wright brothers--they think
they're gonna invent a flying machine."
(True story.)

The proper question to ask is not whether
my nose is hairy & ugly. But whether the
airplane flies or not.

I've shown 50 ways it does. I've NEVER seen
a hint of anybody showing it don't. Not once
.... in these last EIGHT years. Love,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://thesolutionisthis.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.







On Jun 10, 11:48 am, The Magpie wrote:
)))' Orange Peel '((( wrote:


oc Was there a word for Earth's attraction? Or did Newton coin the
word when the apple hit him on the head? We feel the force of gracity
the moment we fall out of the womb. Sunbeam+Bert


Technically, there is no such word and also Newton never did claim
that mass attraction is what forms the gravitational force. What it
was that Newton showed was that the *apparent* attraction towards a
"centre of mass" (not mass) was inversely proportional to the square
of the distance from that centre of mass, provided that there is no
other centre of mass nearby to exert a similar effect.

This is the basis for one of the many MOND Theories (_MO_dified
_N_ewtonian _D_ynamics) of gravitation. Using the original
calculations, it has been presumed that the attraction is associated
with the net mass at a specified "centre" AND the net mass in all
other directions around that centre at an equal distance from the
centre of mass - gravity may "push" from outside or "pull" from inside
but in either case is proportional to all the mass around the object.

Apparently, it can better account for the observed motion of the
Viking craft at the edge of the Solar System, but the maths is horrible.


  #6  
Old June 12th 08, 04:21 AM posted to uk.philosophy.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.astronomy,sci.astro.planetarium
SpreadTooThin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default What is Gravity?

Gravity is just the manifestation of matters destiny.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark energy, gravity, gravity pressure, gravity bubbles, a theory [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 4th 07 12:03 AM
Sakharov's Gravity: Could Gravity Arise from the Fluidic Properties of Spacetime? Double-A Misc 0 November 11th 06 07:59 PM
Gravity Lenses: in an occular sense, where are some good urls that explain multiple gravity lense effects? S_chuber_t UK Astronomy 0 July 8th 05 08:32 PM
NASA Gravity Probe B Mission, Testing Einstein's Theory of Gravity Completes First Year in Space Jacques van Oene News 0 May 4th 05 10:07 PM
GR begets gravity begot from Newton's 1st Law is false, whereas gravity Archimedes Plutonium Astronomy Misc 2 March 25th 05 10:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.