It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question about gravity.

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Moduli
 

If Gravity was a FORCE...it would not be able to exist as it does. It is not a Force. It may act like one on occasion but not always. Split Infinity







posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Moduli
 

If Gravity was a FORCE...it would not be able to exist as it does. It is not a Force. It may act like one on occasion but not always. Split Infinity



ohhh.... you must be right, otherwise we'd have a formula to calculate it or something....

OOHHHH WAIT..... we DO have one and it has been tested in experiment after experiment, has been the essence of our space program, has calculated the orbit of planets....hmmmm but of course those things didn't really happen did they? They were all a clever ruse set up thousands of years ago just to mess with YOUR head weren't they?



That darn Newton and Einstein were just trolls helping to set up the ruse that we were planning to pull on you back before you were born. Whew, I'm glad they helped and got it set up, otherwise it wouldn't have been nearly as fun pulling this awesome prank on you.

::sending message around the world:: Ok guys, it worked, whew, it sure was great, but he's figured it out now. Let's go back to drawing on the walls of caves now since 99.99% of our technology no longer works.... it was good while it lasted, but he figured it all out now, so the game is over

/end message




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 
What are you trying to achieve? Is it some weird social experiment to see how far you can get by talking nonsense? Or are you just bored and trolling?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Moduli
 

If Gravity was a FORCE...it would not be able to exist as it does. It is not a Force. It may act like one on occasion but not always. Split Infinity



No force is an actual force, a force is always exerted by something... seriously, have you ever taken a physics class of any kind?
Perhaps that's where the problem is, do you envision an imaginary "force" in the universe that exists as a force and only as a force and can be harnessed to make you a jedi knight or something?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Humanity has been building computers and electrical devices using equations derived solely from observations for many years, but they still do not understand what an electron really is.

It is the same with gravity. It has been observed for many years, and many equations have been created to help describe how gravity acts in certain environments, but in mainstream science nobody knows exactly what gravity is, it is all still theory.

It is because the equations are derived solely from observations... I would liken that to someone studying how objects move on a computer screen, and over time observing repeatable patterns, and creating equations to describe and predict said patterns, yet never really seeing the source code and knowing exactly how the computer software was designed to make said objects move. They may understand how the objects move, but not why they move, and their equations will never be fully accurate because they can't observe how said objects interact in all possible situations, only in situations which they can observe on the screen.

To sit there and claim to know what gravity is because you can calculate how fast an object will fall is absurd and extremely arrogant. Especially knowing that said calculations and theories fall short on a quantum scale.

Also, nobody here has ever been in the center of a planet, so nobody here will ever know how gravity acts in the center of a planet. You can only theorize.

Also, for the record, we are able to land rovers on Mars because we have things called sensors and computers which can adjust for the shortcomings of calculations based solely on observations, and the shortcomings of the theories of gravity.

With that said... Mathematics is a versatile language. With enough time, mathematics can be made to describe many things, just like the English language can describe many things, even if they don't exist. Mathematics is also like a set of brushes and paints - with enough time you can paint anything. That is the inherent flaw of thinking mathematics is the key to understanding the universe. Just because you can paint a picture to closely resemble nature, doesn't mean you understand nature. It can only describe what is happening, it can not explain what is happening. There is a fine line between describing and explaining, and the two can often be confused.

Isaac Newton had to create calculus (create brushes and paints) in order to describe, in one picture, the motion of falling objects and the motion of celestial bodies in space (Newton's theory of gravity). It turned out Newton's picture wasn't painted accurately enough, so Einstein painted his own picture to be a little more accurate, but it still is not perfect. In the end, all that is left are paintings (theories) that describe what is observed, but yet don't explain what we are observing. Even if you paint the most perfect picture, you still wont know.

Some people actually get paid to paint pictures that are not even based in reality. As long as the colors match, and they faintly resemble known things, they are seriously tested for accuracy.

Some people have even decided to be creative and paint their own pictures from the ground up, instead of modifying pictures painted by others..... and that is the difference between leaders and followers. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to paint the same picture. Some people have even thrown out the old brush and paints, and have decided to create their own method of painting... digital renders for example.


Anyway, enough of that analogy. Sorry for the rant.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Properly stated, Gravity is a "property of matter" which is shown to increase with respect to mass.
It is an "attractive force" which acts on and reacts to all other mass within the universe.
The effects of the attraction can be measured and calculated, and is inversely proportional to the distances between the masses of matter in consideration.

OR, the bigger stuff is and the closer together stuff is the more it wants to get closer together. Nobody has figured out how to make it work the other way, yet!



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Phage
 

Again...you are using models that do not apply to an object falling toward and passing though a Gravity Well. Entropy of Kinetic Energy occurs in the same way a rock thrown into the air eventually stops going up and starts falling down.

Now you are stating that Gravity is creating an equal amount of Potential Kinetic Energy as it falls which is true but that Kinetic Energy is transfered the moment the rock hits the ground. This is not the same form of entropy that occurs when an object reaches the Center Point of a Gravity Well.

Energy Conservation as well as Transfer can be thrown out the window as at the Center Point of a Gravity Well...the Object is no longer subject to standard cause and effect as an object distant from the center. The object is most likely to under go Gravitic Compression of such magnitude that it will change state never mind the FANTASY that the object will remain say a Steel Ball.

All Matter or Elements or Molecules or Compounds of will under go Massive Gravitic Compression. This is just one of the Specialized Effects that occur within the Center point of a Gravity Well of a Celestial body the Mass of Earth. This is not Friction in the Conventional Sense as it is the Warping or Folding of Space Time.

Split Infinity


Okay now I get what you're trying to say. The center of the earth has some sort of special property not understood by modern science. This may well be true, but obviously no-one has observed that effect. If it is true that the "gravity well" has these properties then you would be right.

However, this is not what the question is asking. The question is asking, based on the vector field of gravity defined in this class, what would happen in this scenario. Why would a question in a physics class expect you to take into account undiscovered, and untaught effects.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


this may be a lil off topic then,,,, but why does light move in a frequency? or crest and trough "wave"?,,


The answer from modern science is given by maxwell's equations, which models light as an electromagnetic wave. As it turns out, a changing electric field gives rise to a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field gives rise to an electric field.

So when an object has an energy impulse, where electric energy is released, it creates an increasing electric field. This increasing electric field gives rise to an increasing magnetic field. The increasing magnetic field gives rise to an electric field, which opposes the original electric field. Eventually the electric field stops increasing, and begins to decrease, at which point it gives rise to a magnetic field, giving rise to an electric field opposing this decrease (or an increase in the opposite direction).

That being said I still find the nature of light to be supremely mysterious.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Your understanding of what happens at the center of the earth, is based on your intuition. and That's great, intuition is a wonderful tool to help you perceive reality. However, science doesn't work that way. Science comes to it's conclusions through empirical reasoning and experimentation. So don't expect scientists to adopt your idea.

Your Idea is not scientific, thus no scientist will teach it. That doesn't make it wrong. Scientists won't teach your knowledge because it's not in their field. Religion is also largely unscientific, doesn't make all of the conclusions of religious practice wrong.

Scientists will never accept your idea, until we can go into the center of a gravity well and collect data, or you are able to create a theoretical framework with specific predictions that can be observed. Until then your ideas aren't science, they're speculation.

Speculation is not bad. Speculation is good. Speculation opens the mind and frees the soul. Speculation, is not science!, however. The physics teacher is teaching a science class, what do you want from him?

Now you must ask yourself, why is it that you so badly need for these men to accept your ideas. Why do you demand their acquiescence. Can't you just be happy knowing your right? Write a book, if your ideas time have come the book will gain ground. If not, so be it.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seriousskeptic
 


Yup, that's a very good definition



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminated0ne
 


Gravity can very much be understood, and it IS understood in the effects it has on matter. It has been understood for a very long time and that understanding has been used in many, MANY applications. It's not the same as your analogy at all. In fact, I would say it is avery poor analogy.

We don't have to know the underlying reason for gravity's existance in order to know how it affects matter. It can be measured, it can be calculated and we know how matter reacts to gravity.

Since you want to play with paint, even though you don't know what the particular paint you are using is made of, you can still paint a picture with it. Even if you don't know what kind of bristles are used to make your brush, you can still use the brush to use the paint to paint your picture.

We know the essential fundamentals of gravity, how it behaves, how it works and it's effect on matter. We don't have to know what causes it to exist definitively in order to use what we know. We also know what gravity is NOT. ...well, many of us know. It seems, from this thread, that several don't have a clue....

As far as the folks who are still thinking that the weight would end up at the center of the earth as opposed to continuing to travel back and forth to the same positions given the circumstances outlined in the original post, you are doing an extremely poor job of denying ignorance since it's been explained to you in great detail by several posters.

If you wish to continue to accept ignorance, then that's on you, the rest of us will do what we can to help others to DENY IGNORANCE.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yes please deny ignorance, which includes your entire post.

You don't know what gravity is. Nor do you know how it effects matter. All you know is theories, and what you can visually observe, which is funny because you can't even visually see "spacetime" which is your best theory thus far. You don't know exactly how gravity effects particles on the quantum scale, and in fact your current theory of gravity is known to completely fail on the quantum scale. You don't even know where gravity originates, and scientists are still looking for its origin in particles. You really don't know anything about gravity besides "mass attracts mass", "F = mg", and "F = GmM/r2" which any kid with eyes to see can observe, but there is more to gravity than what you observe. You know just enough about what you observed about gravity to accomplish some tasks, but you still don't know what gravity is, and how it acts in all situations because you haven't observed all situations...

You are measuring the shadows on the wall and proclaiming to know reality... You are a prime example of a prisoner in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

I understand you though... You spent your whole life measuring the shadows on the wall thinking it was reality, and you have a hard time believing and understanding what the freed philosopher is telling you.

edit on 25-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I have re-read several posts in this thread and think that some clarification of definitions is in order. I believe that once we are "comparing apples with apples" much of the confusion will go away.

Firstly, a FORCE is something that would cause an object to move. The underlying reason for the force may be; electromagnetic interaction, strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction or gravitational interaction (the four fundamental interactions of physics), but all produce a force. All these interactions are non-contact and all other interactions in physics derive from them.

Secondly, MASS is currently theorized (under the standard model) to be granted to matter as a resistance to movement through the Higgs field. Mass-less particles (like Photons) slip through the field easily. Massive particles are "sticky" in the Higgs field and so move with resistance.

WEIGHT is not mass. Weight is a measurement of the force generated upon a mass due to gravity.

SPACE-TIME is a coordinate geometrical (topological) layout of where things are located. It consists of a minimum of four axes/directions/dimensions (one of which is a "time axis). Despite the fact that we have historically used a different unit of measure for Time, in the paradigm of space-time, all dimensions can be measured in Meters. We can do this because the absolute highest velocity in Einstein's universe is the speed of light. This gives us an equality that 1 Second = 299,792,458 meters and allows us to do math that gives meaningful results.

CURVATURE OF SPACE-TIME is a physical positional offset to the location of points in space-time, occurring along several axes. Massive objects have been both observed and theorized to cause this 'distortion'. The "rubber sheet" analogy of a bowling ball causing a dent in the plane of the rubber sheet is a tool to help visualize this bending of space-time but itself is only a guide to visualization (The bending of space-time actually occurs on multiple axes and the analogy requires gravity to describe itself).

RELATIVE MOTION is where if we are in an elevator with the door closed, we would be unable to determine the difference between a stationary elevator on Earth or one in space accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters/second. We would have the same weight and no other sensation of movement. Similarly, we may be standing on the Earth, which is orbiting around the Sun at 29,799.69 meters per second and we note a tree beside us. To our reference frame, the tree is not moving. To the reference frame near the Sun, we are both moving quite fast but at the same speed as each other. It is therefore important to note the reference frame of any motion.

GRAVITATION is caused by the curvature of space-time affecting the movement of objects by changing the angular velocity of those objects so that the path of the object through curved space-time is the shortest path that does not require energy to be input. If we consider two objects traveling through space at the same speed as each other, in parallel paths. If the mass of the objects is great enough, the space-time around each of them will be curved in towards their center of mass. If the objects are close enough together, the space-time between them will be more "compressed" than that further away and so they would follow the shortest path, which would bend their path of travel slightly towards each other. From the reference frame of one of the objects, we would not know about the forward motion of both objects and would only see that they were attracted together by an invisible force.

PARTICLE MEDIATED FORCES are when physicists use "quantum sized" definitions of reality, they use the concept of particles to mediate forces. This is allowable because at the scale of these very small things, we find that there are, in fact, minimum sizes of forces (which looks like indivisible particles). We find that there are particles which appear and disappear (virtual particles) and others which seem to persist and we have created a framework of these particles called the standard model. And we also have ways these particles interact that agree with observed parameters. In the instance of gravity, there is a theoretical mass-less virtual particle called the Graviton which, when it splits off and interacts with another mass, steals some angular momentum and thereby deflects the direction of travel of the original mass (without stealing any mass).

A SINGULARITY is an area where mass exists in a spatially dimensionless point. In this situation all particles do not sit adjacent to each other but actually overlay each other, occupying the same space. Our knowledge of physical interactions within a singularity is non-existent. Singularities do not exist at the core of all matter and are a special case occurring in relatively unusual situations.

Hope this is clear and makes sense.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminated0ne
 


Dude, I have a degree in Physics and TEACH it, you dropped out of high school. I know more about gravity than you do


Go over to whatever forum deals with your philosophies, regardless of how misguided they are, and leave Science to the Scientists lil fella.



edit on 25-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by illuminated0ne
 


Dude, I have a degree in Physics and TEACH it, you dropped out of high school. I know more about gravity than you do


Go over to whatever forum deals with your philosophies, regardless of how misguided they are, and leave Science to the Scientists lil fella.



edit on 25-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


how come the suns gravity is strong enough to keep a relatively massive object like the earth in orbit,, and the earth can keep a relatively massive objective like the moon in orbit,, but the sun and earths gravity do not crush us? wouldnt the earths gravity be stronger on the surface of earth then near the moon?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


how come the suns gravity is strong enough to keep a relatively massive object like the earth in orbit,, and the earth can keep a relatively massive objective like the moon in orbit,, but the sun and earths gravity do not crush us?

The force of attraction between two objects is proportionate to the product of the masses of the objects. The Moon is a lot more massive than I am so the force between the Moon and the Earth is a lot greater than the force between me and the Earth.

Basic stuff.

edit on 10/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yes please deny ignorance, which includes your entire post.

You don't know what gravity is. Nor do you know how it effects matter. All you know is theories, and what you can visually observe, which is funny because you can't even visually see "spacetime" which is your best theory thus far. You don't know exactly how gravity effects particles on the quantum scale, and in fact your current theory of gravity is known to completely fail on the quantum scale. You don't even know where gravity originates, and scientists are still looking for its origin in particles. You really don't know anything about gravity besides "mass attracts mass", "F = mg", and "F = GmM/r2" which any kid with eyes to see can observe, but there is more to gravity than what you observe. You know just enough about what you observed about gravity to accomplish some tasks, but you still don't know what gravity is, and how it acts in all situations because you haven't observed all situations...

You are measuring the shadows on the wall and proclaiming to know reality... You are a prime example of a prisoner in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

I understand you though... You spent your whole life measuring the shadows on the wall thinking it was reality, and you have a hard time believing and understanding what the freed philosopher is telling you.

edit on 25-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)


Thank You for writing this reply. It is a kin to the Concepts of what is and is occurring in a BLACK HOLE and the REALITY of what is occurring in a BLACK HOLE. Now Hawking spent a lot of time postulating what was happening and in the end...and THIS statement is directed at the so called..."TEACHER" in this Topics participating members....in the end Hawking FLIP FLOPPED so many times he had bruises on both Front and Back of his Head! This so called "TEACHER" is telling us he is Teaching REALITY when we can only but postulate and at best use examples in the Nature of our Universe to gain a Line of Logic. This "TEACHER" is quoting Theory as FACT.

There are two reasons why I posted that the Center of a Gravity Well that is created by a Celestial Body with the Mass of Earth has Special Circumstances that determine Cause and Effect. Those two reasons are...Since the Laws of Physics break down when looking at a Black Hole it is Logical to think that since a Black Hole is creating an actual true SINGULARITY that Celestial Bodies with lesser amounts of Mass such as Earth...would have at it's Heart or Center of Gravity or Gravity Well...some small aspect or condition that is similar to the break down of Physical Laws within a Celestial Body of Greater Mass such as a Black Hole. The second reason is that because of my third JOB...of which I am a "CIVILIAN" in the sense that the Quotes Denote...and have worked closely with the Military for Decades...there are a few things that I have been made aware of that the average person would not know.

Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


You're an angry little prisoner aren't you.


Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Dude, I have a degree in Physics and TEACH it, you dropped out of high school. I know more about gravity than you do



You don't know me, my history, my education, nor my level of knowledge of gravity. So please lose the arrogance and ignorance.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Question:
What is gravity?

Answer:
We don't really know. .. we only know how it behaves.


Not even NASA knows what gravity is... However, they do claim to know how it behaves, but even that is not fully true. They have no clue how gravity behaves on the quantum scale and there is a race to figure out the mystery of quantum gravity. They don't know how gravity behaves in the center of a planet like Earth, they have never been in the center of one to test their theories. They don't even know why gravity behaves so weak on Earth and in the universe...

So please... go back to teaching kids who make you feel superior, and don't challenge your indoctrination. Here your ignorance will be denied, and not blindly accepted, which obviously angers you.
edit on 25-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminated0ne
 


Sure I know you, your writing speaks for itself.

....notice you didn't deny it....

I'm not surprised either, it's clear you would be unable to function in an environment that proves you wrong. You can't stand being wrong even though it's clear that it happens on a regular basis.

Perhaps with age will come wisdom...or at least you can hope ...

Just because you are unable to comprehend something doesn't make it false. In fact, there are many things in this world that you don't comprehend that are very true. It would be wise to become accustomed to it and try learning about reality instead of trying to oppose reality. It will get you much further in life.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by illuminated0ne
 


Dude, I have a degree in Physics and TEACH it, you dropped out of high school. I know more about gravity than you do


Go over to whatever forum deals with your philosophies, regardless of how misguided they are, and leave Science to the Scientists lil fella.



edit on 25-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


Really...a Degree...OH BOY! I am just so certain that taking Physics 101 in order to get a BA or even a possible but in your case unlikely BS although in your case the B and S could stand for something other than Bachelor of Science. LOL! I have multiple degrees and I am very familiar what a College or University state as Required Courses for achieving the education necessary to Teach High School Physics!

They spend about a 2 week period on any real worthwhile concepts of Quantum Mechanics and I am probably correct in guessing that learning the different names of Quantum Particles in a Proton and Neutron as well as the names of the known types of Quarks...Up, Down, Charmed, Strange...etc...is about as in depth as they taught.

If you were studying Quantum Particle/Wave Form Minimums and Maximums Numerical Absolutes within a particle of Mass which is completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms as well as possible Quark Existence Exchange via Probability within other Protons and Neutrons located in a Divergent Universal Reality within our Multiversal Group...you would not be teaching HIGH SCHOOL! Split Infinity




top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join