Do we really KNOW *gravity*?

[Native]

Please define what a force is. This decleration seems absurd. Gravity is definitely not an energy form since it's a wave field.

Well, you explain it then. You´ll be the first as even Newton couldn´t explain his own *energetic force*, which in Newtons own days was called an *occult agency* by other scientists and natural philosophers.

 

[epronovost]

Well, you explain it then. You´ll be the first as even Newton couldn´t explain his own *energetic force*, which in Newtons own days was called an *occult agency* by other scientists and natural philosophers.

You would not respect or even consider my definition or that used by physicist today (newton's mechanic's has been replaced by general relativity and quantum menchanic a while back). That's why I'm asking for yours. SInce you won't engage with science, I'm forced to engage you on your own ground. Why do you personnaly mean by ''force''.

PS: Have you read anything about Higg's field?

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: Do we really know gravity?

OBS: BEFORE replying, try to think outside the squared boxes.

We think that a mass automatically creates gravity. The problem is that gravity is an energy. It requires energy to make it. Newton did not explained that. And it is STILL not explained today.

No. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a *force*, not an *energy*. They are very different things. A force produces acceleration and is not a conserved quantity. Energy is always associated with some sort of matter and is a conserved quantity.

Gravity must have an energy source to be created. Our laws of physics tell us that but we have ignored this fact.

This is based on a faulty premise (see above), so the conclusion does not follow.

The data indicates that hydrogen and helium make up nearly all of the nuclear matter in the universe. The most abundant element, hydrogen, accounts for 74% of the mass while helium contributes 25%. Heavier elements comprise less than 1% of the total.

How does this fits with the *gravity* suggestions?

Pretty well. Hydrogen and helium have mass, so produce the gravitational force. That is why planets orbit the sun, for example.

Does it NOT fit in some way?

Again, gravity is not free. That is impossible. Other explanations are needed!

What are your thoughts of this?

My thoughts are that gravity is not what is claimed in the first paragraph, so without further input on what you want, there is not much else to say.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you explain it then. You´ll be the first as even Newton couldn´t explain his own *energetic force*, which in Newtons own days was called an *occult agency* by other scientists and natural philosophers.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Is your demand for an explanation just another square box you have constructed?

 

[Native]

You would not respect or even consider my definition or that used by physicist today (newton's mechanic's has been replaced by general relativity and quantum menchanic a while back). That's why I'm asking for yours. SInce you won't engage with science, I'm forced to engage you on your own ground. Why do you personnaly mean by ''force''.

PS: Have you read anything about Higg's field?

If you claim a force or energy to be called *gravity* and used in other scientific departments, you FIRST have to explain the nature of such force/energy so you know what you´re dealing with.

Is it rubber strings? Is it metaphysical teleportation? Is it attraction between a female and male? Is it 1 apple><1apple=applejuice?

*Gravity* is only an assumptive theory:
"Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory.

This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed.

Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics.

Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator".

 

[Native]

No. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a *force*, not an *energy*.

You don´t fool me you know

Is it rubber strings? Is it metaphysical teleportation? Is it attraction between a female and male? Is it 1 apple><1apple=applejuice?

Answer this before you get too cocky.

 

[Polymath257]

If you claim a force or energy to be called *gravity* and used in other scientific departments, you FIRST have to explain the nature of such force/energy so you know what you´re dealing with.

Is it rubber strings? Is it metaphysical teleportation? Is it attraction between a female and male? Is it 1 apple><1apple=applejuice?

Why do we need to do this? And, more so, why does this need to be done *first*? Why not address this after we have verified whether or not it works in practice?

You seem to want a mechanism (rubber bands?), but why? Would that mechanisms not then need an even more basic mechanism to explain it?

*Gravity* is only a assumptive theory:
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory.

This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed.

That, by the way, changed when Cauchy put the idea of limits on a sound logical foundation. Infinitesimals are no longer required to do calculus.

Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics.

Tensors are hardly 'fringe' mathematics! But, more specifically, Einstein used the known results from differential geometry to model his ideas on gravity.

And those ideas worked. They gave predictions that have been extensively tested in amazing detail.

Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.

And yet, it was his greatest contribution to humanity. People are like that: often they don't know what they have achieved.

 

[ChristineM]

You don´t fool me you know

Answer this before you get too cocky.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gravity is not in itself an energy but creates potential energy

Especially over ice in a driveway.

 

[Polymath257]

You don´t fool me you know

Not trying to fool you.

Answer this before you get too cocky.

Why? Why do you think it is necessary to have a mechanism *before* we test to see if things work in practice?

 

[epronovost]

If you claim a force or energy to be called *gravity* and used in other scientific departments, you FIRST have to explain the nature of such force/energy so you know what you´re dealing with.

Is it rubber strings? Is it metaphysical teleportation? Is it attraction between a female and male? Is it 1 apple><1apple=applejuice?

*Gravity* is only a assumptive theory:
"Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory.

This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed.

Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics.

Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator".

That still doesn't answer any of my two questions. What do you call a force? Have you read anything on Higg's field?

Yes, physicist exploring the edge of our knowledge on the cosmos and physics use the edge of our knowledge in mathematics to articulate their theories and explain phenomenon. That's part of the job. People practicing at the edge of medecine uses edge knowledge in the domain of biology. As for Newton's interest in the occcult, this has no relevence on his theory of gravitation or modern physics. A man can have several interests. I'm an historian and I'm currently talking about physics afterall.

 

[Revoltingest]

I
Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors.

Obscure? Fringe?
Tensors are just vectors with accessories. They're so
basic that even undergraduate engineers use them in
rheology, materials, stress, & strain courses.
Engineers....we're just barely more than phys ed majors
in math skill.

 

[ChristineM]

Especially over ice in a driveway.

We are lucky in that respect, the climate is quite dry so we get very little ice on the driveways, also we don't have a driveway but park in the village square, also mostly ice free.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are lucky in that respect, the climate is quite dry so we get very little ice on the driveways, also we don't have a driveway but park in the village square, also mostly ice free.

No driveway?
Are you poor?

 

[viole]

Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with fringe mathematics.

Fringe mathematics? They are basically ubiquitous in algebra and differential geometry.

Tensors are used also in classical mechanics. For instance in the dynamics of solid objects, elasticity theory, etc. And in electromagnetism, too.

And they are pretty much easy to understand, despite the intimidating name. Like Wheeler would say, they are like machines that eat things like vectors and spit out numbers. And they do it in a simple linear fashion (for instance, eating vectors twice as long produces twice as much as a result).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Native]

Why do we need to do this? And, more so, why does this need to be done *first*? Why not address this after we have verified whether or not it works in practice?

Because I don´t believe in forces or energies which cannot be explained. That´s why.

 

[Native]

As for Newton's interest in the occcult, this has no relevence on his theory of gravitation or modern physics.

Oh yes indeed as he just inserted an *occult agency* in his superstitious "gravity" assumption.

 

[ChristineM]

No driveway?
Are you poor?

The tax office doesnt think so

When the house was built the horse and cart was a new invention and Revoltistan hadn't been thought of

 

[epronovost]

Oh yes indeed as he just inserted an *occult agency* in his superstitious "gravity" assumption.

Occult is also a synonym for unkown or hidden in 17th century english. Something hidden that Higg's work and the whole of quantum physics and general relativity might shed light on.

That still doesn't answer my questions btw? Do you intend to participate in that conversation.

 

[Native]

All physics textbook should include this warning label:

"This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered".