Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

Quote from: Ski on July 13, 2012, 02:06:44 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 13, 2012, 01:28:16 PM

No, that's what I've been saying lol. I'm asking if you mean that the dilation will effect what is LITERALLY happening, not how we percieve the time passing.

What we are experiencing is what is literally happening. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Which means if what is happening changes, then our experience will change. Yes?

Well, of course, but things aren't changing.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 13, 2012, 02:01:02 PM

CET, I really wasn't trying to argue with you, I actually only vaguely remember how this all got started. I've just been trying to tell the guy not to use SR as an argument for something by which it is broken. Do you see my point?

I guess.  I was just trying to explain how the earth could always seem to accelerate at 9.8 m/s² without reaching the speed of light or having time stop.  It's theoretically possible, although an energy source that could somehow constantly accelerate the earth doesn't make much sense or seem very likely.  We've certainly never seen anything like that in the real world, and it doesn't seem very zetetic to assume its existence.

The source of energy has been part of my argument the whole time. The output of energy from the UA (and inevitably the input to supply the output) would have to be ever increasing, as you approach the speed of light, mass increases, so the energy required to move that mass does as well. So if the UA were a constant, unchanging, eventually the energy and mass would reach equilibrium, and acceleration would stop. That itself is inevitable. Unless we're talking some non-physical, unproven (and un-zetetic) magic here.

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:35:05 AM

This is ridiculous - things fall down because they have weight. That's what weight means! Why do we need this theoretical invention of gravity? It's an obvious attempt to mask the inherent ridiculousness of the globulist agenda. It's amazing that people in this day and age can still have a hard time understanding why something falls down, even a baby knows the answer to that!

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity. Gravity gives this mass it's apparent "weight." If I take a 1 pound object to the moon, it will only "weigh" .16 pounds. Thus it will fall slower. If you throw it very hard, it will not fall down, at least not for a very long time, it may even retain enough velocity to go into orbit.

The laws of physics aren't something man "made up." They come from man studying the world around him and giving things names, trying to understand how these things work (usually doing so with mathematics, as it is universally understood and gives a better explanation than words). Without understanding these laws, there are a lot of technological advances that would have NEVER HAPPENED. For instance, the computer you are using to spew your ignorance, which you are spewing on the internet. Neither of these things would have come to fruition without an understanding of these laws.

You seem to be the one having a hard time understanding what weight is. For some unknown reason you see it fit to invent "gravity," which, by the way, is just another word for weight. Yeah, gravity means "heaviness" or weight.

Why should I assume that the earth is a big magnet that attracts everything? besides, if this was true, the moon would have slammed into the earth long ago.

Finally, I am insulted by the way you respond to an intelligent argument. You think that your invention of some mystical "gravity" concept gives you the right to name-call and libel others. I never engaged in such behavior and see it as further proof of the corruption that is insidiously pulsating throughout our society.

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

The scientific definition of gravity is not necessarily the same as the common definition of gravity.  But I think that you already knew that.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

The scientific definition of gravity is not necessarily the same as the common definition of gravity.  But I think that you already knew that.

Newtonian ignoramuses did attempt to obscure the truth by corrupting language. True.

But apparently the poster above my previous post didn't even know language well enough.

It seems to be you that has a hard time understanding that. Things don't fall because they have "weight". Weight is a function of two masses attracting to each other, known as gravity. Things fall because they have "mass." Massive particles (particles with mass, aka matter) attracts other massive particles, which is an effect known as gravity.

What about objects without mass?

Here is a thought, if two objects in space are traveling at near the speed of light would the speed at witch they move apart from one another be greater then the speed of light?

also if we are traveling on Earth at nearly the speed of light and our time is slowed, objects that are moving independently of us outside our atmosphere would appear to move differently then they actually are correct? I do not believe in the UA model just fun to think about.

Misconceptions have arisen because of people's inability to look into the difference between inertial frames and non-inertial frames - the difference between acceleration and inertia. In SR acceleration is absolute:  "Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute.  In general relativity all motion is relative."  if you are to invoke general relativity for relativity of all reference frames, you would have to explain why it works without curved space. because curved space and the relativity of all reference frames are intrinsically linked.

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Quote from: markjo on July 20, 2012, 03:00:30 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

The scientific definition of gravity is not necessarily the same as the common definition of gravity.  But I think that you already knew that.

Newtonian ignoramuses did attempt to obscure the truth by corrupting language. True.

But apparently the poster above my previous post didn't even know language well enough.

plural grav·i·ties
Definition of GRAVITY
1
a : dignity or sobriety of bearing b : importance, significance; especially : seriousness c : a serious situation or problem
2
: weight
3
a (1) : the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force — compare electromagnetism 2a, strong force, weak force b : acceleration of gravity c : specific gravity

Definition of WEIGHT
1
a : the amount that a thing weighs b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh (2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are divided according to body weight (3) : poundage required to be carried by a horse in a handicap race
2
a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic exercise or contest
3
a : a unit of weight or mass — see metric system table b : a piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight
4
a : something heavy : load b : a heavy object to hold or press something down or to counterbalance
5
a : burden, pressure <the weight of their responsibilities> b : the quality or state of being ponderous c : corpulence
6
a : relative heaviness : mass b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
7
a : the relative importance or authority accorded something <the weight of her opinions> b : measurable influence especially on others <throwing his weight behind the proposal>
8
: overpowering force
9
: the quality (as lightness) that makes a fabric or garment suitable for a particular use or season —often used in combination <summer-weight>
10
: a numerical coefficient assigned to an item to express its relative importance in a frequency distribution
11
: the degree of thickness of the strokes of a type character

Let's take a look at these definitions, shall we?

Gravity, does, in fact, list "weight" as ONE OF it's definitions. When I clicked on the link to the definition of weight howere, I found something interesting. 6 b states " the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration"

So if we compare these two definitions, we can determine that "weight" is a very loose, non descriptive definition of "gravity," and can extrapolate from the definition of weight, that "weight" is a number given to an object as a function of it's mass being attracted to the other mass.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 03:03:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 20, 2012, 03:00:30 PM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:04:53 PM

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

The scientific definition of gravity is not necessarily the same as the common definition of gravity.  But I think that you already knew that.

Newtonian ignoramuses did attempt to obscure the truth by corrupting language. True.

But apparently the poster above my previous post didn't even know language well enough.

Quote from: Merriam Webster Dictionary=topic=55230.msg1374104#msg1374104 date=1342814693

plural grav·i·ties
Definition of GRAVITY
1
a : dignity or sobriety of bearing b : importance, significance; especially : seriousness c : a serious situation or problem
2
: weight
3
a (1) : the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force — compare electromagnetism 2a, strong force, weak force b : acceleration of gravity c : specific gravity

Quote from: Merriam Webster Dictionary=topic=55230.msg1374104#msg1374104 date=1342814693

Definition of WEIGHT
1
a : the amount that a thing weighs b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh (2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are divided according to body weight (3) : poundage required to be carried by a horse in a handicap race
2
a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic exercise or contest
3
a : a unit of weight or mass — see metric system table b : a piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight
4
a : something heavy : load b : a heavy object to hold or press something down or to counterbalance
5
a : burden, pressure <the weight of their responsibilities> b : the quality or state of being ponderous c : corpulence
6
a : relative heaviness : mass b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
7
a : the relative importance or authority accorded something <the weight of her opinions> b : measurable influence especially on others <throwing his weight behind the proposal>
8
: overpowering force
9
: the quality (as lightness) that makes a fabric or garment suitable for a particular use or season —often used in combination <summer-weight>
10
: a numerical coefficient assigned to an item to express its relative importance in a frequency distribution
11
: the degree of thickness of the strokes of a type character

Let's take a look at these definitions, shall we?

Gravity, does, in fact, list "weight" as ONE OF it's definitions. When I clicked on the link to the definition of weight howere, I found something interesting. 6 b states " the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration"

So if we compare these two definitions, we can determine that "weight" is a very loose, non descriptive definition of "gravity," and can extrapolate from the definition of weight, that "weight" is a number given to an object as a function of it's mass being attracted to the other mass.

That's thinking backwards, buddy. The Newtonian concept of "gravity" came from the normal concept of weight. Weight isn't a vague concept at all. Gravity is just a failed theoretical attempt to explain weight. You are trying to legitimize a corruption of language by claiming that the definition of weight is a vague description of gravity. It's not. Both the word vague and the word weight were around long before Newton. They mean the same thing. They always have.

Question: If there is no gravitational force, wouldn't any magnet be able to hold any object of any mass (any object attracted to the magnet, obviously) above the ground indefinitely?

Question: If there is no gravitational force, wouldn't any magnet be able to hold any object of any mass (any object attracted to the magnet, obviously) above the ground indefinitely?

No, because that object may be too heavy for the magnet to pull up.

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, no offense meant to you. It's not true to say that people didn't know what it was before Newton and Einstein. People simply had a completely different understanding of weight. Indeed, it was the correct understanding. Something which has weight goes down; people have always understood this without resorting to modern theory. Even Newton had no reason to assume that gravity was created by something, which is what Einstein strove to do. Indeed, even Einstein did not see a need for the modern day graviton field theory. If you check his later notes, he even attempts to generalize gravity in an entirely different direction, which was one of the ways he attempted to find a unifying theory. But he never resorted to what every scientist today insists is a logical must, for no reason other than the gut feeling of some pompous academics.

After people get an idea into their head, they rarely ever look back and change it, regardless of how much they have strayed from what originally made them appreciate the idea.

As I've pointed out to countless others, Pyriew, we can observe that masses attract each other with tests like the Cavendish experiment.

Also, if you believe in a spherical earth, "down" isn't good enough.  The attraction is to the center of the mass, which allows bodies to orbit other bodies.  There's no reason to switch back to an older, less complete understanding in a day and age where anyone with a telescope can see the ISS orbiting the earth.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 23, 2012, 12:13:58 PM

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, no offense meant to you. It's not true to say that people didn't know what it was before Newton and Einstein. People simply had a completely different understanding of weight. Indeed, it was the correct understanding. Something which has weight goes down; people have always understood this without resorting to modern theory. Even Newton had no reason to assume that gravity was created by something, which is what Einstein strove to do. Indeed, even Einstein did not see a need for the modern day graviton field theory. If you check his later notes, he even attempts to generalize gravity in an entirely different direction, which was one of the ways he attempted to find a unifying theory. But he never resorted to what every scientist today insists is a logical must, for no reason other than the gut feeling of some pompous academics.

After people get an idea into their head, they rarely ever look back and change it, regardless of how much they have strayed from what originally made them appreciate the idea.

Gravity is the reason WHY it goes "down." I have said this and explained it several times. I don't know whether gravity comes from an unfound "graviton," or whether it comes from a bend in space-time. I just know it's quite obviously there. Something has to make things stick here. What you're saying is "they fall because they have weight." Well why, and how, do they have weight? That's gravity. Not just, "we stay down because we do." That's not good enough. Even a child can tell you that. I know, I have two. They always ask "but why?"

Quote from: garygreen on July 23, 2012, 10:48:28 AM

Question: If there is no gravitational force, wouldn't any magnet be able to hold any object of any mass (any object attracted to the magnet, obviously) above the ground indefinitely?

No, because that object may be too heavy for the magnet to pull up.

Not an answer.  You're just saying things fall because they are heavy.  That's not an explanation of why heavy things fall.  The rate at which an object falls does not depend on mass.

My point is that when a magnet lifts an object off of the ground, it is applying a force in one direction (up) that overcomes whatever force is pulling the object in the opposite direction (down).  If gravity is not a thing, and it's just the Earth moving upward, then that would mean that there is no force opposing the magnetic force.  If there is no force opposing the magnetic force, then any magnet of any strength should be able to hold in place any other object of any mass, provided they are attracted to one another.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 23, 2012, 08:28:53 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 23, 2012, 12:13:58 PM

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, no offense meant to you. It's not true to say that people didn't know what it was before Newton and Einstein. People simply had a completely different understanding of weight. Indeed, it was the correct understanding. Something which has weight goes down; people have always understood this without resorting to modern theory. Even Newton had no reason to assume that gravity was created by something, which is what Einstein strove to do. Indeed, even Einstein did not see a need for the modern day graviton field theory. If you check his later notes, he even attempts to generalize gravity in an entirely different direction, which was one of the ways he attempted to find a unifying theory. But he never resorted to what every scientist today insists is a logical must, for no reason other than the gut feeling of some pompous academics.

After people get an idea into their head, they rarely ever look back and change it, regardless of how much they have strayed from what originally made them appreciate the idea.

Gravity is the reason WHY it goes "down." I have said this and explained it several times. I don't know whether gravity comes from an unfound "graviton," or whether it comes from a bend in space-time. I just know it's quite obviously there. Something has to make things stick here. What you're saying is "they fall because they have weight." Well why, and how, do they have weight? That's gravity. Not just, "we stay down because we do." That's not good enough. Even a child can tell you that. I know, I have two. They always ask "but why?"

And making up a rule called gravity helps HOW?

Before: things with weight go down for some reason.

Now: things with mass curve space-time for some reason.

I can also ask why ad infinitum, what gives you the right to decide when to stop and assume that you have the ultimate reason. Making gravity more complicated does not make it more causally reasonable. At some point you have to end up with a "just because," and I think you've gone too far already when you've reached Newton.

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:33:16 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

When exactly was my argument rendered useless?

Einstein was a kraut (as am I, don't ban me for the racial slur), his stubbornness was to be expected. And I can say that my great uncle knew Einstein as well, that may or may not be true, and unless you can prove it to me, it seems quite far fetched. A lot of people have claimed to know the smartest or most famous men (and women), I hear it all the time from all kinds of people. Like I said, our discussion is at a stand still. Neither of us is going to bend to the other. It is common knowledge among people who know of the topic, that Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together on the Manhattan Project, and were constantly at odds. I learned that when I did my fifth grade science project on Nuclear Reactions.

When exactly was my argument rendered useless?

Einstein was a kraut (as am I, don't ban me for the racial slur), his stubbornness was to be expected. And I can say that my great uncle knew Einstein as well, that may or may not be true, and unless you can prove it to me, it seems quite far fetched. A lot of people have claimed to know the smartest or most famous men (and women), I hear it all the time from all kinds of people. Like I said, our discussion is at a stand still. Neither of us is going to bend to the other. It is common knowledge among people who know of the topic, that Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together on the Manhattan Project, and were constantly at odds. I learned that when I did my fifth grade science project on Nuclear Reactions.

You did not reply to my argument. You took a tiny aside in my post, questioned my honesty, and failed to respond intelligently to the arguments I forwarded.

Now, Einstein and Oppenheimer did NOT work together on the Manhattan project. Einstein never worked on the atomic bomb, regardless of what you heard in your childhood. The disagreement between Oppenheimer and Einstein was regarding QUANTUM MECHANICS and Einstein's rigid opinion regarding QE. Later, after Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked, he moved more into the realm of public intellectual, which once again pitted him against Einstein, who was a loner, distrusted the masses, and rejected concensus when it disagreed with his views. Whatever you learned in school was false, but that is not as surprising as the fact that you base your arguments on things you learned in fifth grade.

As for your aspersions regarding my great uncle, fuck you and your lack of common decency. I didn't even bring that in as proof, just as an interesting little anecdote. Learn to debate like a person, not like a middle-schooler with something to prove.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:45:44 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:33:16 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pyriew on July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 24, 2012, 10:15:48 AM

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

old theories always work if you narrow it down to the frontiers that it was used for before. Newton's theory works, but not for things that are exceedingly heavy, or moving at highspeeds, hence SR/GR. You yourself can use the old model of "it falls down because it's heavy" for everyday assumptions (it will work exceedingly well) but try using that to explain the movements and physical properties of certain celestial objects and you'll see that the tool "it falls down because its heavy" is woefully inadequate.

Try to see beyond your own modest exploration of the world and you'll see that people need more sophisticated solutions based on rationality, evidence and (in some very rare cases) precedence, also known as "Rules of Thumb". Gravity might seem to you to be an ad hoc solution to an already explained phenomena, but in actual fact that phenomena involves more than just "falling down".