Gravity

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself.

It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.

Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 02, 2012, 11:56:41 PM

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself.

It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.

I asked for thoughts on the subject. Is that not provoking a debate?

Q: "Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude

Since you went off on a tangent explanation before, I will give you a simple yes or no question. Are you saying gravity does exist or does not exist?

I did provide evidence - a law that has held since it was first theorised ~300yrs ago. I would enjoy seeing your evidence that it is "wrong".

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.


And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 02, 2012, 11:56:41 PM

I have a simple question I would like answered (with evidence please).

Mass has gravity - A rock pulled out of the ground it will have its own gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
As we are standing on at least 40000 feet of proven 'rock' of increasing density - this would create a nice little gravitational field for us. FE theory seems to object to this? Thoughts?

I know similar has been asked before but after searching I am yet to find a logical answer

I don't really see what you are trying to ask, or debate. It is a tenant of FET that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong. After all, there is no solid evidence that gravity as a force exists. The mechanism in which it works cannot be explained. No graviton has been discovered. It also seems odd that in quantom mechanics, gravity is ignored, as well as the fact that the three understood fundamental forces are said to arise from a single interaction and thus are related to each other and yet gravity, the unknown force, is all by itself.

It seems a bit hypocritical that you ask evidence from us, when you actually have none of your own.

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.


And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

So your saying EnglishGentleman is wrong?

No, because there is no disagreement between our statements.

How can something "clearly" exist without any solid evidence? I thought this was going to be a debate between RE and FE, not between two FE'ers

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

I asked for thoughts on the subject. Is that not provoking a debate?

And you don't think that is a bit vague? We don't know what thoughts you want.

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:48:12 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

You seem to not understand that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. You should have also read the rest of his post before jumping all over "clearly gravitation exists".

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.


And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:48:12 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

Did you just leave a high school debate class? There is no evidence to support any theory of gravity. All we know is mass attracts mass, and we call it gravity. No carrier-particle (if that's the term you want to use) has been discovered in which this force propagates, and it has not been shown that space-time actually bends to cause gravity in mass, as we have no way of observing space-time bending. So, there is no evidence. They are correct, they did not disagree. It clearly exists, but there's nothing supportive like there is for another seeming mystery force, magnetism.

Don't kid yourself. We barely understand E/M either.

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:48:12 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force?

I'm using the scientific definition of force. Perhaps it would help if you took a physics primer before continuing.

E/M propagates through electron fields.

Thinkingman, either you are playing devil's advocate or, I think, you don't understand. here are a few rebuttals:

Did you just leave a high school debate class?

Immaterial

There is no evidence to support any theory of gravity.

Incorrect, read any popularization and/or technical paper and they will point you to evidence.

All we know is mass attracts mass, and we call it gravity.

half truth, we know light bends around massive objects. this has been corroborated after edison.

No carrier-particle (if that's the term you want to use) has been discovered in which this force propagates

Carrier Particles are sufficient, not necassery.

[and] it has not been shown that space-time actually bends to cause gravity in mass, as we have no way of observing space-time bending.

Really? Are you saying that the General and Special Theories of Relativity are unfalsifiable?

So, there is no evidence. They are correct, they did not disagree. It clearly exists, but there's nothing supportive like there is for another seeming mystery force, magnetism.

They did disagree, they just don't understand (and, it seems neither do you) the implications of what they are saying.

Thinkingman, either you are playing devil's advocate or, I think, you don't understand. here are a few rebuttals:

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

Did you just leave a high school debate class?

Immaterial

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

There is no evidence to support any theory of gravity.

Incorrect, read any popularization and/or technical paper and they will point you to evidence.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

All we know is mass attracts mass, and we call it gravity.

half truth, we know light bends around massive objects. this has been corroborated after edison.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

No carrier-particle (if that's the term you want to use) has been discovered in which this force propagates

Carrier Particles are sufficient, not necassery.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

[and] it has not been shown that space-time actually bends to cause gravity in mass, as we have no way of observing space-time bending.

Really? Are you saying that the General and Special Theories of Relativity are unfalsifiable?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 10:45:51 AM

So, there is no evidence. They are correct, they did not disagree. It clearly exists, but there's nothing supportive like there is for another seeming mystery force, magnetism.

They did disagree, they just don't understand (and, it seems neither do you) the implications of what they are saying.

My point was, the two mainstream gravitation theories (graviton and bent space-time) have not currently been shown to be true.

Yes, light does bend around massive objects, but they tend to need a hefty mass, if you will. But my point was we know that mass attracts mass. Light has no mass.

Carrier particles may not be necessary, but every force/energy that I know of uses a carrier particle to propagate in a wave-like manner.

What I'm saying about GR/SR is that it I'm sure, just like every other theory, that it IS in fact falsifiable. There has not been any accept falsification, but that does not mean it is infallible. It cannot be shown that Space-time bends because space-time, as far as we know, is immaterial, and we currently have no technology to analyze the immaterial.

And the way I understood it, they were saying two different things. One said "there is no supporting evidence." The other said "there clearly is gravity."

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

this borders on nonsense.

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

You really don't agree that it exists.

You seem to not understand that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. You should have also read the rest of his post before jumping all over "clearly gravitation exists".

The difference is immaterial. Gravity is just more specific about what celestial body it is referring to. the "machanism" for both is explained in the same way.

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.

Therefore, they do not think it exists.

And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

Any scientist who takes himself seriously avoids total belief in anything.

1.

My point was, the two mainstream gravitation theories (graviton and bent space-time) have not currently been shown to be true.

You really need to find out how the scientific method works. See no.4

2.

Yes, light does bend around massive objects, but they tend to need a hefty mass, if you will. But my point was we know that mass attracts mass. Light has no mass.

I am not sure of your subject so I am gonna tackle both sides of the ambiguity. first, if light does bend around heavy masses, then we have a warrent to infer (through deductive reasoning) that the effect also occurrs around smaller mass.
second, scientists at the moment do need massive objects to observe the phenomena, but this is an empirical limitation, not a rationalistic one. we can still use logic, see above.

3.

Carrier particles may not be necessary, but every force/energy that I know of uses a carrier particle to propagate in a wave-like manner.

Agreed.


4.

What I'm saying about GR/SR is that it I'm sure, just like every other theory, that it IS in fact falsifiable. There has not been any accept falsification, but that does not mean it is infallible. It cannot be shown that Space-time bends because space-time, as far as we know, is immaterial, and we currently have no technology to analyze the immaterial.

falsifiabilty is a criterion for something to be scientific, if it is unfalsifiable it does not mean it infallible it means it is not scientific. we can measure its affects, like space contraction and time dilation, in the form of using clocks and rods. space and time are intrinsically linked to physical phenomena, this is exactly how einstein defines space and time. please read his first paper, you really only need a basic knowledge of a-level maths and physics.

5.

And the way I understood it, they were saying two different things. One said "there is no supporting evidence." The other said "there clearly is gravity."

Why did you say they were agreeing?

[Edit: number juggling]

1.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

My point was, the two mainstream gravitation theories (graviton and bent space-time) have not currently been shown to be true.

You really need to find out how the scientific method works. See no.4

2.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

Yes, light does bend around massive objects, but they tend to need a hefty mass, if you will. But my point was we know that mass attracts mass. Light has no mass.

I am not sure of your subject so I am gonna tackle both sides of the ambiguity. first, if light does bend around heavy masses, then we have a warrent to infer (through deductive reasoning) that the effect also occurrs around smaller mass.
second, scientists at the moment do need massive objects to observe the phenomena, but this is an empirical limitation, not a rationalistic one. we can still use logic, see above.

3.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

Carrier particles may not be necessary, but every force/energy that I know of uses a carrier particle to propagate in a wave-like manner.

Agreed.


4.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

What I'm saying about GR/SR is that it I'm sure, just like every other theory, that it IS in fact falsifiable. There has not been any accept falsification, but that does not mean it is infallible. It cannot be shown that Space-time bends because space-time, as far as we know, is immaterial, and we currently have no technology to analyze the immaterial.

falsifiabilty is a criterion for something to be scientific, if it is unfalsifiable it does not mean it infallible it means it is not scientific. we can measure its affects, like space contraction and time dilation, in the form of using clocks and rods. space and time are intrinsically linked to physical phenomena, this is exactly how einstein defines space and time. please read his first paper, you really only need a basic knowledge of a-level maths and physics.

5.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

And the way I understood it, they were saying two different things. One said "there is no supporting evidence." The other said "there clearly is gravity."

Why did you say they were agreeing?

[Edit: number juggling]

1. I understand the scientific method.

2.You are correct. I agree, so far it has only been observed (as far as I know) on a large scale.

3. Thank you... lol

4.Alright, so I am agreeing with you, and have been all along that it is falsifiable. What I meant to say was that it has not been shown that mass itself causes space-time to bend, as far as I know. It has also not been show that bending space-time will cause gravitational effects.

5.I didn't say they were agreeing. I said they didn't disagree 

1. I understand the scientific method.

2.You are correct. I agree, so far it has only been observed (as far as I know) on a large scale.

3. Thank you... lol

4.Alright, so I am agreeing with you, and have been all along that it is falsifiable. What I meant to say was that it has not been shown that mass itself causes space-time to bend, as far as I know. It has also not been show that bending space-time will cause gravitational effects.

5.I didn't say they were agreeing. I said they didn't disagree 

1. do you? see your answer to 4. Relativity has been corroborated, and therefore the theory itself is still valid to use and unless there is a contending thoery that has evidence and has been corroborated that refutes it, then it is valid in principle, it is irrational to expect something to be "proven" beyond all doubt. it is a logical consequence of  the model of relativity that mass causes gravitational effects. if the fact that mass causes space-time was falsified, then the whole of relativity is falsified, yes: the whole!. as for the actual fact in absolute truth that it do so is not a rational way to look at the world. everything is a model and a theory, no matter what these zeteticists will tell you. the model that has been coroborated states that mass does cause this, therefore there is no need to doubt it in practice, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

5. clever word play, though you are avoiding the point.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 12:47:44 PM

1. I understand the scientific method.

2.You are correct. I agree, so far it has only been observed (as far as I know) on a large scale.

3. Thank you... lol

4.Alright, so I am agreeing with you, and have been all along that it is falsifiable. What I meant to say was that it has not been shown that mass itself causes space-time to bend, as far as I know. It has also not been show that bending space-time will cause gravitational effects.

5.I didn't say they were agreeing. I said they didn't disagree 

1. do you? see your answer to 4. Relativity has been corroborated, and therefore the theory itself is still valid to use and unless there is a contending thoery that has evidence and has been corroborated that refutes it, then it is valid in principle, it is irrational to expect something to be "proven" beyond all doubt. it is a logical consequence of  the model of relativity that mass causes gravitational effects. if the fact that mass causes space-time was falsified, then the whole of relativity is falsified, yes: the whole!. as for the actual fact in absolute truth that it do so is not a rational way to look at the world. everything is a model and a theory, no matter what these zeteticists will tell you. the model that has been coroborated states that mass does cause this, therefore there is no need to doubt it in practice, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

5. clever word play, though you are avoiding the point.

1. Yes, I do. I know that GR/SR are valid theories. The equations and everything is there to support the theories. It just has not been physically shown. I do not doubt it, I know there is no evidence to the contrary. I am playing devil's advocate. I know there is no absolute truth, there's just attempts at understanding the universe we live in that tend to get better and better with time. (Of course, the better the understandings get, the more we humans realize we don't know much of anything at all).

5. It wasn't a word play, I am serious, they didn't disagree. There can be a middle ground.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

this borders on nonsense.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

You really don't agree that it exists.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

You seem to not understand that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. You should have also read the rest of his post before jumping all over "clearly gravitation exists".

The difference is immaterial. Gravity is just more specific about what celestial body it is referring to. the "machanism" for both is explained in the same way.

No. That's absolutely not how "gravity" is defined scientifically. There is no accepted mechanism for gravity or for gravitation. You don't know what you're talking about and are falling into the same nonsense that the first poster is by treating both as "the same thing".

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:20:22 AM

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.

Therefore, they do not think it exists.

Celestial objects clearly exhibit gravitation. It exists. There is some evidence that celestial objects are causing an observable effect on terrestrial mass. If GR or anything nearly like it is true that means that terrestrial mass must also exhibit some gravitation as it would contribute to the stress-energy-momentum tensor. This does not mean that terrestrial mass (or indeed mass in any sense) need exhibit gravitation on the order of the currently-held value of G.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

Any scientist who takes himself seriously avoids total belief in anything.

Here, I'll be more precise for you: Principia is demonstrably false and has been rejected en masse by academia. Why even bring it up?

Quote from: mtarlo11 on August 03, 2012, 08:04:20 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:48:12 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

Did you just leave a high school debate class? There is no evidence to support any theory of gravity. All we know is mass attracts mass, and we call it gravity. No carrier-particle (if that's the term you want to use) has been discovered in which this force propagates, and it has not been shown that space-time actually bends to cause gravity in mass, as we have no way of observing space-time bending. So, there is no evidence. They are correct, they did not disagree. It clearly exists, but there's nothing supportive like there is for another seeming mystery force, magnetism.

Is mass attracting mass not supporting evidence of gravity?

No, it is evidence of gravitation.

Oh joy, the rebirth of the gravity/gravitation argument 

I suppose your new tactic is to bore people to death, Ski?

On the contrary, I'd love to avoid the subject all together, but when he argues that EG and I are contradicting ourselves, that gravity is a force, et al, we cannot proceed until he understands the point both because he misunderstands the issues and also maintains his attitude that we are all blithering idiots incapable of placing coherent thoughts together. 

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

He said there is no clear evidence that it exists as a force; he did not say the phenomena was not extant

this borders on nonsense.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

What is your definition of force? Most would say a force is any influence (either in movement, shape or direction) on an object. As gravity falls under this category - this would make your statements disagree.

However as we both now agree that gravity exists. Do you agree that gravity is proportional to mass?

You really don't agree that it exists.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

You seem to not understand that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation. You should have also read the rest of his post before jumping all over "clearly gravitation exists".

The difference is immaterial. Gravity is just more specific about what celestial body it is referring to. the "machanism" for both is explained in the same way.

No. That's absolutely not how "gravity" is defined scientifically. There is no accepted mechanism for gravity or for gravitation. You don't know what you're talking about and are falling into the same nonsense that the first poster is by treating both as "the same thing".

No definition is given in the quote you replied to.

I didn't treat both as the same thing, I said they are explained, in GR/SR, by the same mechanism. I cannot find anywhere (at all) that makes the distinction you are impying, other than on FESF. Until you come with a usefull theory that both explains all the data and refutes GR/SR, your amazingly good slight of hand "reasoning" can be completely ignored. I do know what I am talking about, you are just coming from a different theoretical standpoint that accepts a distinction (somewhat ad hoc, but anyway.) between the two, where I think the distinction is purely semantic.

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 02:20:22 AM

Clearly gravitation exists. FET questions the accepted mechanism and model of gravitation.

Therefore, they do not think it exists.

Celestial objects clearly exhibit gravitation. It exists. There is some evidence that celestial objects are causing an observable effect on terrestrial mass. If GR or anything nearly like it is true that means that terrestrial mass must also exhibit some gravitation as it would contribute to the stress-energy-momentum tensor.

is there a difference between terrestrial mass and other mass?

This does not mean that terrestrial mass (or indeed mass in any sense) need exhibit gravitation on the order of the currently-held value of G.

Why?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on August 03, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

And for the record, no current scientist who dares take himself seriously believes in Newton's Principia anymore regardless of his or her stance on the RE-FE cosmology debate. Why even bring it up?

Any scientist who takes himself seriously avoids total belief in anything.

Here, I'll be more precise for you: Principia is demonstrably false and has been rejected en masse by academia. Why even bring it up?

Me no bring up. I'll give an answer anyway. within its field of application it is still used: 1. because it makes a damn good approximation and 2. it is easier to work with than GR/SR.

is there a difference between terrestrial mass and other mass?

What reason is there to believe that celesital objects which are causing gravitation are made of the same matter we are? Have we ever actually taken any samples of them? Have we ever been near them? Nope and nope.

Quote from: burt on August 04, 2012, 12:32:20 PM

is there a difference between terrestrial mass and other mass?

What reason is there to believe that celesital objects which are causing gravitation are made of the same matter we are? Have we ever actually taken any samples of them? Have we ever been near them? Nope and nope.

Well tomorrow night there is a live NASA feed to a HD rover landing on Mars. Of course it is all fake though, just another ploy from NASA to make us think the Earth is round.

Anyway I will watch the feed and watch how cool Mars looks.

Quote from: burt on August 04, 2012, 12:32:20 PM

is there a difference between terrestrial mass and other mass?

What reason is there to believe that celesital objects which are causing gravitation are made of the same matter we are? Have we ever actually taken any samples of them? Have we ever been near them? Nope and nope.

So, there is a kind matter that isn't made up of atoms? It's some other kind of thing... which you are gonna enlighten us as to the details and theory of, no doubt

What reason is there to believe that celesital objects which are causing gravitation are made of the same matter we are? Have we ever actually taken any samples of them? Have we ever been near them? Nope and nope.

Matter falls from the sky all the time, and so far it appears to be made of elements we're familiar with that also exist here on earth.