It was my favourite equation from school. It made sense; you could push something heavy and it would take a lot of force and if you pushed something light it would accelerate quickly. It was common sense, f=ma; you knew it made sense. But how can this feeling of certainty be equivalent to the feeling of falling bodies? The thought of a light object falling at the same rate as a lead weight doesn't instantly appeal to the psyche. It's not something that feels intuitively right. It isn't the same feeling of certainty that the moving force brings. The force of my hand can be seen to apply to all the particles of a solid object. If gravity is actually due to particles, then it is not necessarily the same case with falling bodies. We can't see the interactions taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
The lighter object falls with the same acceleration because it experiences less force (because the strength of the force is proportional to the product of the attracting masses at a given distance).
You are just repeating the mathematical equation formulated by Newton. Can you actually imagine the gravity particles interacting with the object matter? If you can, then you will begin to see that there is a discrepancy with regard to extreme densities.
No, I'm not simply repeating the mathmatical equation formulated by Newton. I'm not sure that the rest of what you've said actually makes any sense, but i'll leave that to people more experienced in particle physics than I.
No, it's not counter to 'the psyche', it's just counter to your psyche. Larger object = more mass. More mass = need more force to accelerate it. But larger mass = more stuff to get pulled on by gravity. It balances out. Firstly, doing quantum calculations with gravitons is completely over the top when it comes to dropping bricks or apples and measuring their acceleration. Secondly, you don't know any quantum mechanics or relativity so you can't imagine graviton interactions properly, you simply believe you do because you're an ignorant tool. Thirdly, you've been wrong before on this stuff, such as when you claimed neutron star cores were the densest things possible and so gravity wouldn't affect them properly because there's be more neutrons than gravitons in a space, which is completely wrong, as I explained to you. Your lack of knowledgable about even qualitative things like the Pauli exclusion principle meant you just made **** up and you're stupid enough to think your ignorant random guesses are right. Did you really do an astronomy degree? Really? You don't seem rational enough to grasp how science works, never mind actually do it well enough for someone to give you a degree. Not to mention your knowledge of the details of astrophysics is very very poor. I did one course in cosmology and a few in classical and relativistic mechanics and I know more about this stuff than you. But then I have actually done stuff relating to gravitons.
I'm not denying that you have a lot of knowledge and experience. I'm saying that you have too much! You are too blinkered in your own certainty of what you know. We have opposing views, who cares? AlphaNumeric; if you are so well connected, why not find out if the pioneer satellites are heading towards the invariable plane? It they aren't, then my whole argument falls apart.
Because... i cant believe i have to spell this out.... LIGHTER OBJECTS TAKE LESS FORCE TO MOVE. The reason they fall at the same rate is because even though the forces are different, the rate of acceleration is THE SAME. End of story
The invariable plane is the plane that represents the angular momentum of the solar system, approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter.
