#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
What is Gravity?
Gravity is just the manifestation of matters destiny.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark energy, gravity, gravity pressure, gravity bubbles, a theory | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 3rd 07 11:03 PM |
Sakharov's Gravity: Could Gravity Arise from the Fluidic Properties of Spacetime? | Double-A | Misc | 0 | November 11th 06 06:59 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 09:18 PM |