What is gravity really?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

[QUOTE=Half Man Half Wit]
Interestingly enough, though, one proposed explanation for the Pioneer anomaly, the flyby-anomalies exhibited by a couple of probes (Galileo, NEAR, Cassini and Rosetta), and even dark matter (or more correctly, the galaxy rotation problem) involves a modification of the principle of equivalence – essentially, the proposition is that inertia is caused by Unruh radiation , which is (black-body) radiation experienced by an accelerated observer (leading to a theory like Milgrom’s MOND, only modifying inertial mass instead of acceleration). Thus, inertial mass becomes dependent on the acceleration of an object, which can be made to fit observations regarding irregular accelerations like those exhibited by some probes during flyby-manoeuvres – essentially, if the inertial mass reduces for low accelerations, conservation of angular momentum demands a sudden jump in speed for an object doing an orbital flyby. The paper can be found here, if anyone’s interested.

[/QUOTE]

thats kinda neat…

does that imply that if you found the right paint that was opaque to gravity, you could fly all over the solar system easily?

While I am obviously refering to an old somewhat classical sci fi movie in jest, this is also a somewhat half serious question…

Just gotta find the right paint and bingo!
blll

42

[QUOTE=Yumblie]
As for the Pioneer anomaly, I’m not convinced that physics needs to be rewritten to explain it, as it could very well be an instrument failure. It’s an interesting problem though.
[/QUOTE]

I do not rewrite the truth of physics; I stand against dogma.
The articles I have observed tend to rule out anything quite so simple as coincidental instrument failures on every satellite.

[factoid] Egyptians used complex geometric equivalency to calculate what Babl~ solves with simple algebra. [/f]

[QUOTE=Half Man Half Wit]
I’m confused as to how to picture this – so does a mass just accelerate space-time into its direction, causing everything else to be pulled along with it? What happens to that space-time, does it just kinda pile up in the centre?
[/quote]

Force as inertia exists by space and time. In verse, as goes space and time, so goes mass and energy.
I would humbly suggest space and time might simply be just going back by what seems best described as higher dimension.

f=ma f=i=g Newton demonstrates that force is in verse (equal and opposite) acceleration. Newton demonstrates that force is both inertia and gravity.
Alas, Newton did not imagine that space and time might be fluent.

e=mc^2 Einstein demonstrates time is indeed fluent by current observation. Einstein demonstrates energy is inverse (equal and opposite) force as mass.
Alas, like Newton before, Einstein did not imagine space might be fluent.

Yet algebra shows that if e=mc^2 and f=ma, then m=e/c^2, and f=(e/c^2)a. Thus basic newton and einstein and algebra predicts inverse of inertia (f=[m]a) as f=[e/c^2]a (gravity).

In the beginning, levity exceeded spacetime constant (c^2). Thus space expands beyond even speed of light. Yet expansion and cooling of spacetime energy allows mass to condense out of inflating spacetime as matter; first by nuclear; then by electromagnetic forces. Thus expansion increasingly slows as levity is increasingly balanced by gravity. The slow is in turn reversed as matter is fused by countless star. Thus levity released increases and prevails; for in reaction by increasing levity, universe expansion is seen to be accelerating.

Dark monkeys need not apply.

All:
If you would please before other comment or question. I seek just simple and honest answer.

If pioneering voyagers might lead into headwind by relative quanta of space and time,
What would confirm better than observation of ships thousand of miles off course as predicted?
Peace
rwj

43

Things great physicists do when they have had a revelation:

  1. Publish an article in a peer reviewed journal
  2. Present their findings at a prominent physics conference. For example an APS conference.
  3. Talk with their physicist peers about it to help refine it.
  4. A grad student might mention it to his advisor or comittee.

Things great physicists don’t do when they have had a revelation:

  1. Blog about it on myspace
  2. Create a web page announcing their discovery and send out mass e-mailings.
  3. Post it on internet message boards.
    This is the most intelligent message board I know of. There are plenty of people that know a whole shitload of physics. There may even be a PhD or even professor that posts here once in a while, but its no physics journal. I may not be a physicist, but I sure as hell know how the scientific process works, and the fact that your posting “groundbreaking” stuff on an internet message board puts you right up there with the water-for-gas folks.
44

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
The flow of space and time carries me weightless towards center of mass. Yet I feel force of 1 G by gravity and inertia.
[/QUOTE]

If GR is correct: that’s because the spacetime track of the bit of the Earth’s surface you’re standing on isn’t a geodesic. Your natural constant-velocity path through curved spacetime can’t be followed because the Earth’s surface is pushing you off that path. That natural path seems to be accelerated when we measure it as if we lived in a Euclidean universe, but we don’t … Your situation is very similar to that of the person in a big rotating cylinder who ‘feels’ the centrifugal force pinning him to the side; that force is an illusion, created by the assumptions that the cylinder is an inertial reference frame. If Einstein’s theory is fully correct, the force of gravity is the same sort of force as a centrifugal force.

One reason that drags scientists toward accepting GR, aside from its pure mathematical elegance (which is pretty, but really shouldn’t count for anything), is that it explains why gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the object the force acts on. This is true of centrifugal force because it’s (again) not a real force, but an artifact of measurement in an inappropriate frame. If gravitational force is also an illusion of this type, you’d expect it to be mass-proportionate, for the same reasons.

If only GR were fully consistent with QM, everyone would be so happy!

(Studying some history of non-Euclidean geometry in physics might be helpful for you. I didn’t really ‘get’ this in the process of getting a B.S. in physics; but in philosophy grad school I took a history & philosophy of physics course about pre-Einstein discussions of non-Euclidean geometry which really illuminated these issues for me. In particular, Helmholtz’s ‘proof’ that the universe, while it could be non-Euclidean, absolutely could not be non-Euclidean with variable curvature, was very educational. It is mathematically absolutely perfect–and absolutely wrong in its conclusions. When you understand that, you’ll understand everything. [About this, anyway.])

45

You know, i’ve never really understood people who claim that the truth they have brought forth cannot be hidden and is readily obvious, or that truth in general has some kind of mystical quality that makes it readily clear and unavoidable.

In this case, the truth appears to have been hidden for a good few thousand years. And if it can be that, what validity does it have against dogma?

46

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
I confess I am always amazed by hostility released as dogma pricked.
[/QUOTE]

You really, really need to get over this part. The people here are not being dogmatic. They are presenting reality as the facts show it to be. It’s not religion, it’s math. You labeling current scientific findings as “dogma” doesn’t make it so. And it doesn’t make your arguments any more true. And on this board it doesn’t make you cute.

Quoting my challenge and then babbling on about dark space monkeys doesn’t make you right either. Nor does flowery prose.

Then ask a simple and honest question. Until then, I’m outta here.

47

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
Dark monkeys need not apply.

All:
If you would please before other comment or question. I seek just simple and honest answer.

If pioneering voyagers might lead into headwind by relative quanta of space and time,
What would confirm better than observation of ships thousand of miles off course as predicted?
[/QUOTE]
*"To seek it with thimbles, to seek it with care;
To pursue it with forks and hope;
To threaten its life with a railway-share;
To charm it with smiles and soap!

For the Snark’s a peculiar creature, that won’t
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don’t:
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!

For England expects–I forbear to proceed:
'Tis a maxim tremendous, but trite:
And you’d best be unpacking the things that you need
To rig yourselves out for the fight."*
[indent][indent][indent]-- Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark[/indent][/indent][/indent]

Does that answer your question, Mr. Jefferson?

Stranger

48

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
All:
If you would please before other comment or question. I seek just simple and honest answer. If pioneering voyagers might lead into headwind by relative quanta of space and time, what would confirm better than observation of ships thousand of miles off course as predicted?
Peace
rwj
[/QUOTE]
Alas and again and even here and now, I find my pleas denied.
Let the record show that currently none attempt even simple answer.

[QUOTE=WarmNPrickly]
This is the most intelligent message board I know of.
[/QUOTE]

Prickly:
Prior to this question, I would have willingly agreed. Yet still I find sad indeed that even this most intelligent message board refuses admit simple and honest answer. Even when asked poetically.
Will somebody please call PhD. Doctor? Teacher? Cecil?
Is there no one on this most intelligent board will at least attempt a simple and honest answer?
Warm:
What observation would you predict as ship might react by opposing current?

[QUOTE=SCSimmons]
If GR is correct…
[/QUOTE]

[cryptic] If GR were correct, there would be no differential of observation by prediction. If GR were correct, satellite and universe would behave as predicted. [/cryptic]
Silly monkeys.

** SCSimmons: **
What observation would you predict as airship might react by headwind?

[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
The people here are not being dogmatic.
[/QUOTE]

Dogma answers not simple question. Dogma attacks those seeking simple and honest answer. Darkma sidetracks quest for truth.
Please forgive. I recognize the mark of this particular beast.

Truth answers for itself. Please reveal which of my simple stories are not consistent by current observation. Yet still I would especially appreciate even your own best attempt to admit to truth.

** Don’t fight the hypothetical **
What observation would you predict as (space) ship might react by head (space) wind?

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Does that answer your question, Mr. Jefferson?
[/QUOTE]

No it does not.
Please try again.

Stranger On A Train :
What observation would you predict as ship reacts by headwind?

All:
Please answer this simply and honestly or please do not bother answer at all.
What observation would you imagine if spaceship might react by headwind?

Peace
rwj

49

This is going nowhere and if rwjefferson does not make his problem with the answer more clear, I’m going to lock this thread. It sounds like the answer to “What is gravity?” is “We don’t know.” I’m not sure why this is a continuing problem.

50

This thread will not end well.

I, for one, welcome our non-euclidean cephalapodic overlords.

51

I can’t believe you all came up with all this stuff. The answer is simple and right in front of you. Go look in the mirror. If you’re over 30, you know what gravity is.

Gravity is that force that is making my face slide to the ground, along with my neck and breasts as I enter my late 40s.
Jeesh–even Cecil knows that.

<dusts off hands> My work here is done.

52

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]

Gravity is that force that is making my face slide to the ground, along with my neck and breasts as I enter my late 40s.

[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget to turn around. It’s pulling your ass down, also. :smiley:

53

[QUOTE=samclem]
Don’t forget to turn around. It’s pulling your ass down, also. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

I never liked you.

:smiley:

54

Please forgive.

I seem to be at loss on how to ask simple question. Please allow do-over again.

The general questions currently on the table (paraphrased) are:

What observation would you predict if a ship sailed into an opposing current?
What observation would you predict if an airship flew into a headwind?
What observation would you predict if a spaceship flew into a cosmic headwind?

a)It will be delayed.
b)It will reach its destination as predicted.
c)It will reach its destination early.
d)We don’t know.
e)It will be held back by dark monkeys.

If still this is going nowhere, please allow it peaceful death. The trolls seem reasonably quiet for now.
Yet please leave it still open per chance even one with pity that might attempt better answer than D or E.

In Kind
Peace
rwj

55

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
What observation would you predict if a ship sailed into an opposing current?
What observation would you predict if an airship flew into a headwind?
What observation would you predict if a spaceship flew into a cosmic headwind?

a)It will be delayed.
b)It will reach its destination as predicted.
c)It will reach its destination early.
d)We don’t know.
e)It will be held back by dark monkeys.

[/QUOTE]

The answer for all those three is a). An uncompesated opposing force will always slow down a traveling object made up baryonic matter.

56

[QUOTE=groman]
The answer for all those three is a). An uncompesated opposing force will always slow down a traveling object made up baryonic matter.
[/QUOTE]

I thank you for an answer.
I agree that force is in verse equal and opposite acceleration by mass – including mass as baryonic matter.

Peace
rwj

57

I much prefer the dark monkeys option.

My universe is more interesting than the real world’s.
:cool:

58

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I much prefer the dark monkeys option.
[/QUOTE]

I can see where that might come in handy:

I’ll be in late tonight honey, I’m being held back by DarkMonkeys
A DarkMonkey ate my homework.
Etc…

59

[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
What is Gravity, really?

Gravity is not curvature of space.
Really.

f=(e/c^2)a
Gravity is spacetime acceleration.
g=sta
Really.
Any questions?

Peace
rwj

[/QUOTE]

Well…that’s right (we think). Matter causes space to “curve”. Great. So what does that mean? Basically it’s like this (as I understand it). Space and time are connected. Over time, an object can take any number of paths through space. As you get closer to a big mass, space “curves” such that there are fewer and fewer paths that will take your object away from your big mass. Objects experience this effect as “gravity”. Why does it work like that? Who knows?

The most extreme example, of course, being a black hole. Once you pass the event horizon, all paths lead towards the singularity in the center. That’s why light can’t escape and why you can’t simply lower an astronaut in on an unobtainium line and winche out.

60

G= Pi to the T.