• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My theory about gravity.

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You are quite right of course, but Native makes a fetish out of not understanding science, so you are wasting your time, I'm afraid. :rolleyes:
No, I´m rather "making a fetish" of finding cosmological problems and dealing logically with these and see how much the problems are human made because of cosmological misconceptions and "automatic old stuff learning in universities". i.e. cosmological dogmas.
Just for the sake of completeness, the moon is indeed getting gradually farther from Earth, because, due to the pull of the tides, the angular momentum of the Earth's spin is gradually being transferred to the orbital motion of the moon. So the Earth's spin is gradually slowing down while the moon is gaining speed, causing its orbit to gradually move outward from the Earth. But I don't expect Native to accept that explanation.;)
Of course I don´t accept this "spooky spinning actions at distance". This "explanation" is nothing else but a gravity rationalization over observed motions on the Earth and the Moon in order to fit the theories. It may fit the speculations of gravitational theories, but then again: Newton himself couldn´t explain the dynamic forces in his gravity theory and so can´t anyone else, not even you Mr. Exchemist :)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I know this very well. So the "heavy gravitation from the Earth" cannot even overcome the biological force of the capillary action.

Correct. Gravity is actually a very weak force. The capillary force is larger in small tubes.

I know of this gravitational theory but the Moon isn´t falling at all. This is just a gravitational concept for atmospheric motions around the Earth in a certain distance. Further out in space there is NO PULL at all from the Earth which is confirmed by the increasing distance to the Moon. And besides all this, the Newtonian idea of universal celestial motions is contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly".

Wrong. The moon is continually falling, which is what produces the orbit. but the amount is falls is slightly less than needed to close the orbit, so as it goes through many orbits, it gradually moves outward.

The Newtonian equations are NOT contradicted by the rotation anomalies of galaxies: those analogies simply mean there is more mass there than expected. Those masses also need to go into the Newtonian formalism to get correct results.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I´m rather "making a fetish" of finding cosmological problems and dealing logically with these and see how much the problems are human made because of cosmological misconceptions and "automatic old stuff learning in universities". i.e. cosmological dogmas.

Of course I don´t accept this "spooky spinning actions at distance". This "explanation" is nothing else but a gravity rationalization over observed motions on the Earth and the Moon in order to fit the theories. It may fit the speculations of gravitational theories, but then again: Newton himself couldn´t explain the dynamic forces in his gravity theory and so can´t anyone else, not even you Mr. Exchemist :)

Fortunately, Einstein gave an improvement on Newton's law which includes such an 'explanation'.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Life as we know it could not exist without gravity. It is a natural binding force, the cause of which is mysterious, that holds everything together in our world and in our universe. Matter would just float in space freely and aimlessly without form otherwise. Without gravity, the universal and mutual attraction between material bodies, there could be no solar system or orbits of heavenly bodies as a foundation to cement life and all the natural necessary provisions to make life possible. Gravity is the restraint the keeps us from drifting away from our sun forever so that we would otherwise freeze to death in short order.

Gravity, like water, makes life possible but also either is sometimes the cause of death. Mother Nature gives life: Mother Nature takes away life.

mysterious? Do you know general relativity?

ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
My theory is I wouldn't be here typing this if it weren't for gravity. Nothing could bind the atmosphere to the earth so I would even have air to breathe.

so, a sort of anthropic argument. Gravity exists because otherwise you would not be here typing that.

ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Could it be that gravity is a field force supplied to creation by God? It's the glue that cements everything together in the physical cosmos, maybe? Something seeming so magical as gravity and magnetism could even be a compelling argument for the existence of a Supreme Being.
Sure. And something so magical as a supreme creator, who might even exist without gravity, despite being able sitting on white thrones, might be a compelling argument for the existence of an even Supremer being. And so on.

Falling objects also accelerate. Possibly, the invisible reel with an invisible hand crank of invisible rope attached to a visible falling object and turned by earth's invisible arm picks up it's rate of rotation rapidly in linear fashion. Rate of gravitational acceleration is linear, not exponential. Mother Earth is just cranking her invisible rope of gravity increasingly faster at a constant (uniform) rate of acceleration until the falling object makes contact with her face. When you fall to your death from a building, earth is just reeling you in very quickly.

Falling objects do not accelerate. You on the floor accelerate in their direction.
And that is why you have a weight. And they do not.

the equivalence principle in a nutshell.

ciao

- viole
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Correct. Gravity is actually a very weak force. The capillary force is larger in small tubes.

The process in xylem of trees seems to be quite complicated. From what I read, the "suction" due to concentration gradients between the leaves and the sap - and due to the surface tension pull from evaporation in the pores - can be considerable. However in a vertical pipe, one would only be able to get a column of water to rise 10m by suction from the top, since that is what 1 atm of pressure would support. Capillary attraction of water to the walls of the fine tubes permits a further rise without a vacuum forming. And then there is, apparently pressure from the roots as well, again due to concentration gradients. All of these, it seems, combine to make it possible for trees to grow to far greater heights than 10m.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
My theory is I wouldn't be here typing this if it weren't for gravity. Nothing could bind the atmosphere to the earth so I would even have air to breathe.
That is an observation, not a theory. In fact it is a particularly obvious class of observation, known as a truism.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I know this very well. So the "heavy gravitation from the Earth" cannot even overcome the biological force of the capillary action.

I know of this gravitational theory but the Moon isn´t falling at all. This is just a gravitational concept for atmospheric motions around the Earth in a certain distance. Further out in space there is NO PULL at all from the Earth which is confirmed by the increasing distance to the Moon. And besides all this, the Newtonian idea of universal celestial motions is contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly".

Actually gravity is tiny. It's one of the profound mysteries as to why it's so tiny
compared to the other forces. You can't have "atmospheric motions" with the
moon - if the moon was orbiting in the outer atmosphere of the earth, no matter
how thin, the moon would lose energy and gradually spiral down into the earth.
And gravity from earth goes to the ends of the universe, presumably, it's just
that it's very very weak at such distances. The anomaly in the galaxy isn't an
anomaly about gravity, it's a mystery about what gravity is "seeing" that we can't
see.
It's all super interesting stuff. We all learn from talking about these things.
:)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Wrong. The moon is continually falling, which is what produces the orbit. but the amount is falls is slightly less than needed to close the orbit, so as it goes through many orbits, it gradually moves outward.
Note this underlined sentence:
I know of this gravitational theory but the Moon isn´t falling at all. This is just a gravitational concept for atmospheric motions around the Earth in a certain distance. Further out in space there is NO PULL at all from the Earth which is confirmed by the increasing distance to the Moon. And besides all this, the Newtonian idea of universal celestial motions is contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly".
First: Of course I should have said "space motion" in stead of "atmospheric motions".

About orbital motions: We have to expand our world view in order to understand the orbital motions in our Solar System.

Planets are orbitally connected to the Sun via the gravitational center and the orbital motion of the planets derives from the spinning Sun from which the planets originally are formed.

This initial outgoing formative motion from the Sun is STILL working in the Solar system, amongst others, causing the Earth to move away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth. This has NOTHING to do with an attractive gravity at all or spooky "gravitational frame dragging". Planets and Moons are NOT "falling" as thought and speculated in the Standard Cosmology.

There is NO NEED to speculate in this way:
Wrong. The moon is continually falling, which is what produces the orbit. but the amount is falls is slightly less than needed to close the orbit, so as it goes through many orbits, it gradually moves outward.
Yes the Moon moves gradually outwards as I explained logically :)

The orbital motions of planets in our Solar System doesn´t fit the orbital starry motions in galaxies, which is why Newton is contradicted regarding "celestial motions around a center of gravity". And as the entire Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion around the galactic center, another orbital explanation of both the Solar System as well as the galactic motion is needed.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The Newtonian equations are NOT contradicted by the rotation anomalies of galaxies: those analogies simply mean there is more mass there than expected. Those masses also need to go into the Newtonian formalism to get correct results.
This is indeed a very bad "explanation".

In order to save the Newtonian gravity equations the scientists just states some needed mass is the cause for the rotation anomalies in galaxies.

A strict scientific method is otherwise to revise or discard a hypothetical law when something not expected or contradictive observations shows up. Anything else is bad science and nothing else.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This is indeed a very bad "explanation".

In order to save the Newtonian gravity equations the scientists just states some needed mass is the cause for the rotation anomalies in galaxies.

A strict scientific method is otherwise to revise or discard a hypothetical law when something not expected or contradictive observations shows up. Anything else is bad science and nothing else.

Nope. For example, when the motion of Uranus didn't quite fit Newton's laws, *one* of the options was to discard those laws. Another was to see if something else was out there modifying the motion. And, in fact, there was something else: Neptune. And, using Newton;s laws, Neptune was discovered where it was predicted to be.

In the case of dark matter, there are many other lines of evidence showing there is extra mass, so it adding such mass into our considerations is perfectly reasonable. And, once that is done, the orbital motions fit the math *and* all those other lines of evidence are consistent.

You misunderstand how the scientific method works. We don't immediately discard descriptions because of a single flaw. Instead, we look to see if there is something we missed. And yes, we also look at alternative descriptions. But it is far more likely we missed something than to have a well tested theory suddenly fail in its domain of testing.

And, I want to point out, alternative explanations for the galactic motions *have* been proposed that change the law of gravity. MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) was such a proposal. But it ultimately didn't fit the evidence either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There is NO NEED to speculate in this way:

Yes the Moon moves gradually outwards as I explained logically :)

While continually falling.

The orbital motions of planets in our Solar System doesn´t fit the orbital starry motions in galaxies, which is why Newton is contradicted regarding "celestial motions around a center of gravity". And as the entire Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion around the galactic center, another orbital explanation of both the Solar System as well as the galactic motion is needed.

No, the motion of the solar system is quite independent of that of the galaxy as a whole. Planetary orbits do NOT align with anything galactically.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Actually gravity is tiny. It's one of the profound mysteries as to why it's so tiny
compared to the other forces. You can't have "atmospheric motions" with the moon - if the moon was orbiting in the outer atmosphere of the earth, no matter how thin, the moon would lose energy and gradually spiral down into the earth.
And gravity from earth goes to the ends of the universe, presumably, it's just that it's very very weak at such distances. The anomaly in the galaxy isn't an anomaly about gravity, it's a mystery about what gravity is "seeing" that we can't see.
It's all super interesting stuff. We all learn from talking about these things.:)
"You can't have "atmospheric motions" with the moon . . .". Correct. I should have said "space motions".

Oh yes. The anomaly in the galaxy IS all about gravity in the sense of the law of "orbital motions of celestial bodies around gravity center". The orbital motions of planets in the Solar System (which the law is based on) is different from the orbital motions of stars around the galactic center.

This is what the anomaly shows. The planets in or Solar System orbits differently from each other whereas the stars in the galaxy all orbits similary to each other around the galactic (assumed gravity) center.

This common starry motion in the galaxy can ONLY take place if the galactic formation of stars in barred galaxies goes from within the galactic center and outwards in the galactic surrounding, just like the proces in a two arm rotating garden sprinkler. This motion is in fact a repulsive motion and NOT an attractive motion at all.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
In the case of dark matter, there are many other lines of evidence showing there is extra mass, so it adding such mass into our considerations is perfectly reasonable. And, once that is done, the orbital motions fit the math *and* all those other lines of evidence are consistent.
I know :) Lots of cosmological conditions can be "explained" by twisting the math so cosmos fits the equations. Real science does it the other way around.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I know :) Lots of cosmological conditions can be "explained" by twisting the math so cosmos fits the equations. Real science does it the other way around.

Nope. real science attempts to figure out what is going on. That can mean adding in things we missed, changing the explanations, or any number of other things. It isn't 'twisting' the math to add in things we didn't previously know about.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Nope. real science attempts to figure out what is going on. That can mean adding in things we missed, changing the explanations, or any number of other things. It isn't 'twisting' the math to add in things we didn't previously know about.
I know :) Adding things is very common in Standard Cosmology :) Funny enough, all these latest added "things" are in dark mode which cannot be seen or observed.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I know :) Adding things is very common in Standard Cosmology :) Funny enough, all these latest added "things" are in dark mode which cannot be seen or observed.

But they *are* observed. We can use their gravitational influence to map out where the dark matter is. That *is* an observation.

The point is that if you want to 'observe' via light, the material must interact with photons, but dark matter does not. But it does still interact in other ways and those other ways *are* ways of making observations.

And why would you *expect* everything to interact with photons? There is no fundamental reason for that assumption. And, in fact, we know of particles that don't: for example, neutrinos. Neutrinos were even considered a dark matter candidate: there are enough of them to have an effect, but the fact that tey are relativistic turns out to mean they don't fit the observations.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
But they *are* observed. We can use their gravitational influence to map out where the dark matter is. That *is* an observation.

The point is that if you want to 'observe' via light, the material must interact with photons, but dark matter does not. But it does still interact in other ways and those other ways *are* ways of making observations.

And why would you *expect* everything to interact with photons? There is no fundamental reason for that assumption. And, in fact, we know of particles that don't: for example, neutrinos. Neutrinos were even considered a dark matter candidate: there are enough of them to have an effect, but the fact that tey are relativistic turns out to mean they don't fit the observations.
Darn. Ninjaed!
 
Top