What is Gravity? Why/How does it work?

On Sep 14, 7:50 pm, wrote:
Jim S wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:35:23 -0700, sdr wrote:

I was going with that until you said
"BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion"
'because of'? Jim S

Yes. "BECAUSE OF"

START QUOTE FROM:http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...wton3laws.html

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Let us begin our explanation of how Newton changed our
understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three
Laws of Motion.

Newton's First Law of Motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends
to remain in that state of motion unless an
external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of
inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of
Inertia".

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object's mass
m, its acceleration a, and the applied force
F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are
vectors (as indicated by their symbols being
displayed in slant bold font); in this law
the direction of the force vector is the same
as the direction of the acceleration vector.

This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws,
because it allows quantitative calculations of
dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are
applied. Notice the fundamental difference between
Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle:
according to Newton, a force causes only a change in
velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the
velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under
Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is
the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is
only a velocity if there is a force, but according to
Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains
that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an
acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As
we have noted earlier in conjunction with the
discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be
more in accord with common sense, but that is because
of a failure to appreciate the role played by
frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces
acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of
Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found
to be in accord with the observations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

III. For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off
a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the
direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the
opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water,
if we aren't careful!).

END QUOTE



Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

The UNIVERSE' breeding area (the "more tenuous spot"
above) would have been perfectly surrounded by "denser
material" which would have crashed towards its center:

Note that, in response to this motion {Law 3} a
growing greater volume of that "denser area" would
have "become less dense" ... as its "material" moved
towards "the more tenuous spot," [the "area" from
which "the material" was moving would have spread
outwards BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion].

Additionally, the "thermodynamic flow" would have
crashed towards the "center" of the less dense spot.
And, necessarily, all the material flowing there from
the surrounding areas would have had only itself to
crash against (or, "to wind itself up unto itself"
might be a more appropriate way of putting it): An
effect which continues even unto this very day "there"
--or "here," since "there" is the entirety of the/our
visible universe (in other words, the universe of
"matter" which has coalesce into "us").

S D Rodrianhttp://poems.sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.



On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden
BandTechnology.com" wrote:

Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata

http://www.archive.org/details/COMPL..._PIANO_SONATAS

Ha! Those are by Mozart.
Last time "I" wrote a piano
sonata it caused such hysterics
(of laughter) that I
was briefly held on a charge
of attempted homicide
(of my listeners).

Sorry... interpretation...

I wish we could discuss the relation of
thermodynamics and gravity.

VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
"singularities" are physically impossible in our
reality--all you need do is look around you).

Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
compare "the size" of the universe... it will
"always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.

Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
shrinking may actually be).

Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.
You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:

Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2
above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of
"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the
falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it
hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it
accelerate at all?

The reason for this acceleration is that the
"shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]

The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
"faster" it grows smaller... forever.

This is the reason why for a dozen or more
years before astronomers finally discovered
that the universe's "expansion" was
accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.

If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual
black hole star, its acceleration would almost
certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
only just "nearly."

This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in
place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole
star's. Why?

Because this effect/interaction is one which is
strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:

In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's
floor and vice versa.

And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
the center of the

...

read more »

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and
energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are
experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are
interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are
those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave
forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical
expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular
wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second
wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom
following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two
dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling
faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three
dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two
dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this
local density fluctuation, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple
wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed
universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is
indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear
acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole
travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in
a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly
to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is
downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension
field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds
its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as
the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated
in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that
travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge,
being a gravitational attractor, gathers more of the energy of the
field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to
collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the
original direction of the first torus. This is a black hole to the
first torus, and a white hole to the second torus.
While gravity tends to draw things together locally on the torus, even
to the point of collapse, other areas on the torus are expanding and
contracting globally without regard to any local phenomenon. The
inertia of the torus is its dark energy. A three dimensional universe
is more complicated in one respect, but no different in another.

From Structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201