Lets talk again about gravity

  • 242 Replies
  • 36839 Views
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #180 on: June 07, 2007, 06:29:44 AM »
Quote
Lets talk again about gravity
Misplaced modifier maybe?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #181 on: June 07, 2007, 08:31:07 AM »
Can you call me "Idiot" too?
Only since you have proven it true.

Idiot.

Now do you feel included?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #182 on: June 07, 2007, 10:24:16 PM »
Quote
Your source disagrees my darling.

I have read it. The information comes from http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/

The author and maintainer of that website is a Wallace proponent. He would obviously be siding with his hero Alfred Wallace. However, the experiment isn't at all described. If you will look at my other source you will find that the results of the experiment implies a Flat Earth.

It only takes a few braincells to figure out who's right and who's wrong:

- Wallace argues with the referee about the meaning of the experiment's results. Obviously he lost the wager despite him calling himself the "winner" afterwards.

- Rowbotham explains to us the details of the experiment and how the results imply a Flat Earth.
    Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: A pair of letters to the Editor printed, respectively, in the 2 April and 16 April 1870 numbers of The Field. In 1870 Wallace accepted a wager offered by a flat-earth proponent to prove that the earth was not flat. This resulted in the famous Bedford Canal experiment, in which Wallace used his surveying experience to show that the freely sitting water surface was indeed rounded. Wallace won the wager, but not, on a technicality, the five hundred pounds that had been put up, and was harassed for fifteen years by the loser, one John Hampden. In these two letters, Wallace disputes the interpretation of the results of the experiment given by another flat-earther, William Carpenter, who had served as Mr. Hampden's referee during the event. Original paginations indicated within double brackets. To link directly to this page connect with:
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S162-163.htm

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #183 on: June 08, 2007, 08:53:41 AM »
Wow, trig, you abandoned this thread rather quickly.  I am somewhat impressed.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #184 on: June 08, 2007, 02:37:40 PM »
I do not know where you learned your physics, but with or without the effects that happen at speeds approaching the speed of light, forces are not changes in velocity, net forces cause changes in velocity.  Force equals mass times acceleration, and one of the forces is gravity.
You mean pseudo force, right?  Gravity as a force does not exist.  It arises from transforming a noninertial frame of reference into an inertial one.  Newton's laws do not apply to a noninertial frame of reference.
I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.

The sum of forces on an object include all four known forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) and only the sum of all these forces on an object equal its acceleration. Right now the other three forces are keeping the floor under my feet solid, and I am being pushed upwards by the floor with a force of some 750 Newtons, while gravity pushes me down by the same amount. I am ignoring the other forces on me at this time, since they are much smaller.

That Newton's laws do not apply to a non-inertial frame of reference is a sad attempt at trying to say "if you are not absolutely exact, you are totally wrong". Forces applied on a system on a noninertial frame of reference can be first calculated ignoring this fact and then the respective correction is added to all bojects in the system. In the case of the Earth, the correction due to the earth's rotation and orbit are small and usually negligible.

Of course, all of this is useless to you, since the application of the above requires you to use numbers, formulas, models and such!

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #185 on: June 08, 2007, 03:39:18 PM »
Can you call me "Idiot" too?
Only since you have proven it true.

Idiot.

Now do you feel included?

Can you call me an idiot please? I feel left out
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #186 on: June 08, 2007, 03:40:14 PM »
Ooh!  Do me, too!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #187 on: June 08, 2007, 05:15:51 PM »
I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.
Only the layman thinks that gravity is a force, as every serious scientist knows otherwise.
Quote
In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive (objects with mass) objects are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other.

Quote
Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force.

Quote
That Newton's laws do not apply to a non-inertial frame of reference is a sad attempt at trying to say "if you are not absolutely exact, you are totally wrong".
By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply.



"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #188 on: June 08, 2007, 05:27:45 PM »
I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.
Only the layman thinks that gravity is a force, as every serious scientist knows otherwise.

Sorry to pull a Tom, but:
Quote
Only four fundamental interactions are known: strong, electromagnetic, weak (unified into one electroweak interaction in 1970s), and gravitational (in order of decreasing strength).

How do you define "serious scientist"..?

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #189 on: June 08, 2007, 05:42:33 PM »
Science is serious business lawl.  ;D

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #190 on: June 08, 2007, 06:25:01 PM »
Quote
Only four fundamental interactions are known: strong, electromagnetic, weak (unified into one electroweak interaction in 1970s), and gravitational (in order of decreasing strength).

How do you define "serious scientist"..?
Gravity and gravitation are different things.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #191 on: June 08, 2007, 10:00:17 PM »
I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.
Only the layman thinks that gravity is a force, as every serious scientist knows otherwise.
Only in a forum like this somebody is capable of saying such nonsense and get somebody that believes you. You can read the "Feynman Lectures on Physics" and find where Feynman explains where gravity or gravitation are pseudo-forces. And that is just to mention my pre-grad text book. Or maybe you would like to check "Lectures on Gravitation, Addison Wesley Longman, 1995, ISBN 0-201-62734-5", which I have not checked, but maybe Feynman has a different story for his more advanced students. Maybe another text book is not in the conspiracy? Just give me the reference, and in which university the text book is used, and I can discuss it with the physicists of the best university of my country. Better yet, fax me the pages and the reference, and I will have something that will really wet the appetite of the professors.

Reality is different: the only four forces discovered in nature so far are the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. If you decided that only the first three are real, you would have to find how the other three can move the sun, moon, planets, and other celestial objects as seen by everybody on Earth, despite none of them has a significant effect at distances of more than a few meters away.

Only remember, while true scientists making true models, doing exact observations of the position and appearance of each object in the sky and predicting exactly their movements based precisely on the gravitational force and without any need for anything but the four known forces, can predict just about every event in the sky on objects smaller than a galaxy, the models defined by FE proponents cannot predict the simplest things.

So please show us a book different from Rowbotham's that denies that planets are very massive indeed, generally heavier than 10 to the power of 20 kilograms, kept in orbit by a very real force that pulls them towards a star. That force may be expressed as gravity or as a curvature in space-time, but every serious book on physics will tell you that both gravity and curvature in space-time are approximately equivalent unless the orbiting planet moves at speeds greater than 0.05c.

Again and again, you are trying to win physics debates with word games and rhetoric, avoiding even the simplest use of numbers, lying shamelessly about what mainstream physicists say. You do not even try to win by doing real science, proposing models and the mathematical formulation of its details, proposing  experiments or showing experimental data.

We are still waiting for your reference of a physics book that says "gravity is acceleration" or "gravitation is acceleration". Now we are also waiting for a reference to "gravity is a pseudo-force".

Quote
Quote
That Newton's laws do not apply to a non-inertial frame of reference is a sad attempt at trying to say "if you are not absolutely exact, you are totally wrong".
By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply.
Again, where do you find such garbage? Maybe you are trying to win by taking quotes out of context, or maybe you cannot understand that physics is not about sound bytes. but you can, again, refer to the text book by Feynman and learn that the acceleration of an object is the sum of the acceleration  with respect to the frame of reference plus the acceleration of the frame of reference, whatever the frame of reference is. The forces can be derived from the accelerations.

Now we are also waiting for a reference to the book that says that "By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply". You will find that the real books in the real world say that Newton's laws apply, you just have to add the impact of the acceleration of the frame of reference. But adding requires numbers, and you are allergic to numbers, or aren't you?

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #192 on: June 08, 2007, 10:15:27 PM »
... By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply. ...
Reference for your definition, please.

I like this one: "A non-inertial frame of reference, therefore, is one in which a free particle does not travel in a straight line at constant speed." Reference: Wikipedia. Newton's Laws apply to the planets, their moons, your car as it accelerates, and a host of other cases of accelerating particles.

I think you're wrong on this one. Please reconsider. Thanks.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #193 on: June 08, 2007, 11:05:38 PM »
Quote
Such an accelerating frame of reference is called a non-inertial frame because the law of inertia does not hold in it. That is, an object whose position is judged from this frame will seem to spontaneously change its velocity with no apparent non-zero net force acting upon it. This completely violates the law of inertia and Newton's laws of motion, since these laws claim that the only way an object can change its velocity is if an actual non-zero net force is applied to the object. Objects just do not start to move about here and there all on their own.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/framesOfReference/nonInertialFrame.html

Quote
A non-inertial reference frame is one in which a body violates Newton's Laws of Motion, mainly the First Law. In such a frame, despite no real force acting on a body at rest, it might move; or one that was already moving come at rest or change its direction of motion. For comparison see an inertial frame.

Newton's first and second laws of motion do not hold in non-inertial reference frames. Specifically, masses in non-inertial reference frames appear to feel fictitious forces (such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force) that derive from the acceleration of the reference frame itself. Fictitious forces cause apparent accelerations in objects without any physical force causing the acceleration. Fictitious forces are proportional to the mass upon which they act; if such forces are observed, scientists will recognize that they are in a non-inertial reference frame. For example, the rotation of the Earth can be observed from the Coriolis force acting on a Foucault pendulum.

An apparent exception would seem to be the force of gravity, which is also proportional to the mass upon which it acts. Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

Quote
By definition, an Inertial Frame is a frame of reference in which the law of inertia applies.
http://physics.tamuk.edu/~hewett/ModPhy1/Unit1/SpecialRelativity/InertialFrame/InertialFrame.html

Quote
As we have seen (in Sect. 3), Newton's second law of motion is only valid in inertial frames of reference.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node62.html

Looks like the physics instructor is wrong, yet again.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #194 on: June 09, 2007, 03:15:40 AM »
Only in a forum like this somebody is capable of saying such nonsense and get somebody that believes you. You can read the "Feynman Lectures on Physics" and find where Feynman explains where gravity or gravitation are pseudo-forces.
All that typing you did and the error is in the first two sentences.  Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial FOR into an inertial one.  Gravitation is not even a force.  Perhaps you should have tried reading the quotes I provided you before, it might have prevented this little 'display' of yours. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #195 on: June 09, 2007, 03:16:20 AM »
I'm still waiting to be called an idiot
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #196 on: June 09, 2007, 05:57:52 AM »
TheEngineer wins yet again.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #197 on: June 09, 2007, 06:22:23 AM »
Only in a forum like this somebody is capable of saying such nonsense and get somebody that believes you. You can read the "Feynman Lectures on Physics" and find where Feynman explains where gravity or gravitation are pseudo-forces.
All that typing you did and the error is in the first two sentences.  Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial FOR into an inertial one.  Gravitation is not even a force.  Perhaps you should have tried reading the quotes I provided you before, it might have prevented this little 'display' of yours. 

Now that you have worked hard looking at the definition of inertial reference frames, check a simple fact: these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work, instead of cheap philosophy about definitions. Read your own quotes and you will see that Newton's laws are not really obliterated, there is just an external effect called by definition pseudo-force that is called in that way because it does not exist within your system. You will find the typical exercise where your system is moving in circles (for example in a centrifuge) and everything will be as if a centrifugal force were pulling everything. This force is called pseudo-force, but the real force is the one that keeps your experiment going in circles.
Pseudo-force does not mean total lack of force, it means the real force is not the one you are feeling from the inside of your system.

Of course, the real problem here is that you lack the commitment to jump into physics and stop playing with words. There is such thing as a gravitational force that is considered real by almost all the scientists, and you can dance around words all you like but the fact that you are allergic to models, mathematical formulation of models, and just about anything involving numbers, prevents you from doing or understanding science.

You can also infer anything you like from the different terms used in the theories of relativity but two facts remain:
- In general and special relativity gravitational forces exist, they are just corrected for effects that happen at speeds close to c.
- Einstein himself calculated the effects of gravitational forces on Mercury and predicted successfully the observed anomaly by which the ellipsis of the orbit of Mercury rotates with time.

Have you actually taken a telescope in your hands and measured the orbits of the celestial objects? Everything you say it is not so was discovered as a direct consequence of those measurements, and you do not have a single model that even approximates a prediction of such measurements.
Have you found an alternative model that explains the movement of the planets without a gravitational force?
Have you even cared about measuring anything in the sky instead of playing with definitions in books?




Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #198 on: June 09, 2007, 06:28:56 AM »
TheEngineer wins yet again.

No sir the Engineer is on just as much Paint Thinner as you. Join a cult with guns next time John. At least then you can do something cool with your life rather than wasting it away believing in ridiculous theories that will never grasp hold in the realms of reality. Great fiction though I applaud your unbridled focus on something that is really just a waste of time.

PS: When is the cult handing out suicide pills?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #199 on: June 09, 2007, 06:39:23 AM »
"Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force"

these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work

What would doing the actual work prove in your case? Surely you have an example of doing work that is contrary to the definition or you wouldn't make such a stupid point.

No sir the Engineer is on just as much Paint Thinner as you. Join a cult with guns next time John. At least then you can do something cool with your life rather than wasting it away believing in ridiculous theories that will never grasp hold in the realms of reality. Great fiction though I applaud your unbridled focus on something that is really just a waste of time.

PS: When is the cult handing out suicide pills?

It's great that you made the incorrect assumption that I believe in a Flat Earth, which I do not.

I'll just paste what I put in the other thread.

I just try to get people to argue effectively and accurately. If I see a flaw in someone's argument, I'm going to point it out. It helps to reach a more accurate statement, and it makes the other side less likely to have a suitable rebuttal.

It is a lot harder to argue against FE because so little is explained at this point and I'm not an expert on astrology or physics. I am however, good with English and debating, so I use that to contribute. It's lot easier to point out the stupidity of an RE'er because they use that 'common sense' instead of concrete explanation.

Plus I find the idea of an FE intriguing and enjoy seeing what people can come up with in its favor, even if it is against the norm.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2007, 06:58:55 AM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #200 on: June 09, 2007, 07:26:36 AM »
Only in a forum like this somebody is capable of saying such nonsense and get somebody that believes you. You can read the "Feynman Lectures on Physics" and find where Feynman explains where gravity or gravitation are pseudo-forces.
All that typing you did and the error is in the first two sentences.  Gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial FOR into an inertial one.  Gravitation is not even a force.  Perhaps you should have tried reading the quotes I provided you before, it might have prevented this little 'display' of yours. 

Now that you have worked hard looking at the definition of inertial reference frames, check a simple fact: these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work, instead of cheap philosophy about definitions. Read your own quotes and you will see that Newton's laws are not really obliterated, there is just an external effect called by definition pseudo-force that is called in that way because it does not exist within your system. You will find the typical exercise where your system is moving in circles (for example in a centrifuge) and everything will be as if a centrifugal force were pulling everything. This force is called pseudo-force, but the real force is the one that keeps your experiment going in circles.
Pseudo-force does not mean total lack of force, it means the real force is not the one you are feeling from the inside of your system.

Of course, the real problem here is that you lack the commitment to jump into physics and stop playing with words. There is such thing as a gravitational force that is considered real by almost all the scientists, and you can dance around words all you like but the fact that you are allergic to models, mathematical formulation of models, and just about anything involving numbers, prevents you from doing or understanding science.

You can also infer anything you like from the different terms used in the theories of relativity but two facts remain:
- In general and special relativity gravitational forces exist, they are just corrected for effects that happen at speeds close to c.
- Einstein himself calculated the effects of gravitational forces on Mercury and predicted successfully the observed anomaly by which the ellipsis of the orbit of Mercury rotates with time.

Have you actually taken a telescope in your hands and measured the orbits of the celestial objects? Everything you say it is not so was discovered as a direct consequence of those measurements, and you do not have a single model that even approximates a prediction of such measurements.
Have you found an alternative model that explains the movement of the planets without a gravitational force?
Have you even cared about measuring anything in the sky instead of playing with definitions in books?




Wow! You really said a lot there and did a great job. Thank you so very much!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #201 on: June 09, 2007, 07:31:29 AM »
Wow! You really said a lot there and did a great job. Thank you so very much!

He didn't really say anything. He first says that doing work will discount the definition...which kind of makes the definition false. So that makes sense? LOL

Then he attacks TheEngineer. He then states two facts that I don't feel like researching. He follows that up with asking questions that TheEngineer probably doesn't care to answer, because I don't think I've ever really seen him argue for FE as much as he points out their inaccurate statements (like what I do) as well as their poor physics.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #202 on: June 09, 2007, 10:19:48 AM »
"Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force"

these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work

What would doing the actual work prove in your case? Surely you have an example of doing work that is contrary to the definition or you wouldn't make such a stupid point.

Glad to oblige, maybe this this forum will actually help someone learn physics.

Take a race car that spins around a perfectly round racetrack (for simplicity). The easiest frame of reference you can use is one centered in the car, that moves and rotates with the car. Most forces acting on the car are the ones you expect:
- Friction from the air and floor tend to stop the car, just as if the car was going straight
- The motor is pushing the car forward, balancing the force from friction

Everything seems just as if the car was going in a straight line, except everything seems to be pushed outward; everything inside the car is being "pushed" with a force proportional to its mass. In truth, a force does exist, but it is that of the wheels pushing the car inwards.

Everything inside the car works according to the "laws" of Newton (theories, if we use modern terms), except for the "force" that does not come from any place in the car. The quote by The Engineer saying the laws of Newton are not valid is true but incomplete (he forgot the place where the "invalid" part was explained).

Now some definitions: the aforementioned "force" is the centrifugal force and it is not real. It is therefore called pseudo-force. The real force is the centripetal force, that is the frictional force that the wheels exert on the pavement to push it toward the center.

It is very convenient in terms of simpler mathematical formulas to analyze the forces from the moving frame of reference, since the wheels push always in the same direction, You just have to calculate a 1.3 g or so centrifugal force instead of a force that is sometimes northbound, sometimes southbound and so on. What is not OK is to forget that the real forces are those seen from a standing point on the pavement.

The moral of this story is that you can work with pseudo-forces if it makes your life easier but you cannot forget that side by side with each pseudo-force there is a real force.

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #203 on: June 09, 2007, 10:24:35 AM »
Does this debate have a point or what?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #204 on: June 09, 2007, 10:56:33 AM »
Now that you have worked hard looking at the definition of inertial reference frames, check a simple fact: these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work, instead of cheap philosophy about definitions. Read your own quotes and you will see that Newton's laws are not really obliterated, there is just an external effect called by definition pseudo-force that is called in that way because it does not exist within your system.
You mean a pseudo force like gravity?  Thanks for making my point for me.  As I stated before:

Newton's laws don't apply in a non inertial frame.  You called this "garbage" until you realized I was right, now you are trying to back pedal your way out of it. 

I said gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial frame into an inertial one.  You also said this was wrong, and that gravity was really a force.  Now, realizing I was right again, you are trying to cover yourself with the above post. 

Quote
- In general and special relativity gravitational forces exist, they are just corrected for effects that happen at speeds close to c.
No, in GR, gravitation is not a force.  If you knew anything about GR you would not have made this statement.

Quote
- Einstein himself calculated the effects of gravitational forces on Mercury and predicted successfully the observed anomaly by which the ellipsis of the orbit of Mercury rotates with time.
No, he did calculations on the curvature of spacetime that allowed him to predict the precession.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #205 on: June 09, 2007, 10:57:57 AM »
Wow! You really said a lot there and did a great job. Thank you so very much!
Wow! You really ignored my post quite well.  Good job!


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #206 on: June 09, 2007, 11:09:02 AM »
Wow! You really said a lot there and did a great job. Thank you so very much!
Wow! You really ignored my post quite well.  Good job!
Funny I just pointed out in another thread how you do that.   Good job you. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #207 on: June 09, 2007, 12:23:35 PM »
Now that you have worked hard looking at the definition of inertial reference frames, check a simple fact: these are definitions. Read a few pages ahead and they will teach you how to work with the definition to do actual work, instead of cheap philosophy about definitions. Read your own quotes and you will see that Newton's laws are not really obliterated, there is just an external effect called by definition pseudo-force that is called in that way because it does not exist within your system.
You mean a pseudo force like gravity?  Thanks for making my point for me.  As I stated before:

Newton's laws don't apply in a non inertial frame.  You called this "garbage" until you realized I was right, now you are trying to back pedal your way out of it. 

I said gravity is a pseudo force that arises from transforming a non inertial frame into an inertial one.  You also said this was wrong, and that gravity was really a force.  Now, realizing I was right again, you are trying to cover yourself with the above post. 

Quote
- In general and special relativity gravitational forces exist, they are just corrected for effects that happen at speeds close to c.
No, in GR, gravitation is not a force.  If you knew anything about GR you would not have made this statement.

Quote
- Einstein himself calculated the effects of gravitational forces on Mercury and predicted successfully the observed anomaly by which the ellipsis of the orbit of Mercury rotates with time.
No, he did calculations on the curvature of spacetime that allowed him to predict the precession.

This is getting tiresome. Again and again and again, give me numbers! Give me mathematical formulations! Give me predictions based on the models! Try to look like a scientist, not a rhetoric expert!

You will dance around terms forever, since the simple concept of a gravitational force is unacceptable to you and you can only compensate by word games. You can show your point even if most scientists disagree, in exactly the same way all scientists do: Give numbers! Give mathematical formulations! Give models! Give predictions based on your models and show experimentally that your models work!

Since the times of Ptolomey, at least, there have been models of our cosmos that predict the apparent size, apparent position and appearance of all the celestial objects visible at the time, with varying degrees of accuracy. The FE hypothesis are unique in this respect: no predictions whatsoever that even by a long shot resemble the precision of even the Ptolomaic system. You can talk volumes about gravity, gravitation, gravitational force, space-time, acceleration and so on, but all of that is word games until you do an actual prediction.

While Other people in this forum have in fact made predictions based on the paltry models proposed for FE and proven them wrong, you just try to limit gravity discussions to Earth, where only the a few little known experiments show you wrong. Of course, if you were a scientist you would try to observe what happens when two or more gravitation fields interact and you would pass from words to experiments or at least observations, but that would mean you can be a scientist!

For all the rest in the forum: when TheEngineer talks, please ask for more than word games.

?

Bushido

Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #208 on: June 09, 2007, 12:25:45 PM »
Quote
Let's talk gain about gravity

Let's not.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Lets talk again about gravity
« Reply #209 on: June 09, 2007, 12:36:07 PM »
This is getting tiresome. Again and again and again, give me numbers! Give me mathematical formulations! Give me predictions based on the models! Try to look like a scientist, not a rhetoric expert!
So, I take this to mean you concede that you have no idea what you are talking about.  Arguing about non inertial FORs and pseudo forces without doing your research, shame on you.


If you want numbers, predictions and mathematical formulations, read a book on General Relativity.  You could really use the education.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson