Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

Oh yes, the humiliation I have created for myself in thinking that life does not defy the law of gravity. Oh, the shame. How will I ever be able to show my face in these forums again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

wtf???
The law details the forces that are created by gravity. These forces exist regardless of whether there is a counter force. If there is no counter force then according to the laws of motion the body would continue to accelerate under the force of gravity.
But a counter force does not defy the law of gravity, it is merely another force, the net of which (if non-zero) results in movement.
Maybe you should get your 7 year-old grandson to explain it to you.

Rubbish, it in no way resolves the question. You have said that life defies the law of gravity... I.e. Is capable of defying the law of gravity. You have yet to show that, or support it in anyway that does not merely confuse the law for a mere force of gravity. That you are trying to claim the issue resolved because you think life does not always need to defy the law of gravity does not resolve in any way the claim that you consider life is capable of defying the law of gravity.

I suggest you google for the evolution of fish, of tetrapods and of reptiles. Key fossils include the 375-million year old Tiktaalik Roseae.
[/quote]Note: I have already conceded that the issue is unable to be concluded in a way that offers any definitive outcomes.[/QUOTE]And that concession is moot, since you have claimed that life is capable of defying the law of gravity and yet you are unable to show a single instance that is based on anything remotely sensible.
And it is becoming quite clear that you have little appreciation for the difference between a law and the force that the law describes in a given situation.
And as Cpt Bork said, you are trying to treat gravity in isolation, and using the existence of other forces (described by other laws) as support for the "defiance" of the law of gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but these forces are not self animated are they?

A star has no will to move on it's own accord... people do...
People can choose to stand up or not, defy gravitational attraction or surrender to it...expend energy as and upon what they choose to...
it is the evolution of self animation and how that evolution may have to defy the laws of gravity to achieve what it has achieved.

What man does with his will is considered as artificial [non-natural] and that can be extended to include standing up or walking by choice.
So one could conclude that to stand up is to go against the forces of nature just as it is when we build a dam or a ship, or fly to the moon...
would you say the Luna landings were natural events or man made artificial ones?

Just for the record here is the claim [OP to this thread] that you are referring to posted directly from another thread and from another threads context.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Sarkus,

Of course nothing can avoid the effects of gravity. The question is in the terms "to defy" or "act in defiance of",. This is not saying the same thing as to neutralize or destroy gravitational attraction. self animated life is not being claimed to have some sort of "anti-gravitational ability" this is because there is a cost associated with our ability to CHOOSE to stand up and defy the otherwise natural outcomes of the laws associated with gravitational attraction. We CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to do so...and CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to continue doing so.. etc.

We are able by force of will, employ our energy to deliberately work against the natural or normal attraction of gravity, thus the term defy is quite appropriate IMO.
We have apparently evolved from non-animation to self-animation and to do so means at some point, life would have had to defy the laws of gravity to do so. However to do so it must have utilized self determination as with out it the word "defy" becomes inappropriate. IMO [which is why to minimize confusion, I limited the claim to one involving humans.]

If you feel the need to complain about my usage of words and their definitions then I would suggest that before you go on a campaign as you have this time, you seek clarification of that word usage.

It is also fair to add that IMO the existence of gravitational forces does not determine our choices however it does significantly influence them.
[ are you able to realize the distinction between influence and determine?]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well by your definition it seems any lump of protoplasm that moves upward is "defying" gravity, since gravity should tend to make it sink down.

This is a definition nobody but you uses, as it obviously deprives the term of any useful meaning.

The discussion is idiotic.

 

actually I would look even deeper to something less than a single Planck length...and see just how idiotic it gets...
because I am confident you will have to agree eventually that nothing can defy gravitational attraction except self animated life.

 

I'm sorry but I am out of this walf-witted discussion.

In fact I'm taking a break from this forum too, in the hope that eventually some sensible things may get posted. Right now it's a lunatic asylum.

 

You seem to have a tragic difficulty distinguishing unpredictability from "self animation". The mechanisms of the human brain and neuromuscular system have never been seen to violate any principles of physics and chemistry. On the other hand, there are far too many parameters for even today's best computers to feasibly calculate in order to predict the exact behaviours of a human being, even though certain patterns and tendencies do exist. The weather's impossible to predict with precision too, especially if you're predicting beyond a week in advance, but that doesn't mean it's defying anything either. Evolution starting from self-replicating naturally forming DNA has been demonstrated as a viable theory since the 1950's with experiments such as this one.

The funny thing is, by your own admission you have no clue what the laws of physics are or what they imply (which can only be described precisely with mathematics, not plain English), so you're not in a position to make any intelligent assertions about whether life defies them or not.

 

As I said, the gravitational force is F = mg.

Case 1: the object under gravitational acceleration is falling to Earth: g is the rate of acceleration, 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup].

Case 2: the object is as rest on the ground: g is the constant of proportionality which relates mass to force. A 1 kg mass exerts 9.8 Newtons of force on the ground.

The direction of acceleration is toward the center of mass. Therefore the direction of g is toward the center of the Earth. Since g is directed downward, then F is directed downward, thus the ball presses into the ground.

The earth is held in orbit around the Sun because the direction of g is toward the Sun. If g had the opposite direction, the Earth would be thrust away from the Sun, not towards it.

Here is a simple explanation to help you better understand.

http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_gravity.html

 

Really? Falling to earth? What distance does it fall? How much time does it fall? What was the initial velocity? What was the final velocity? What is the velocity of the ball on the beach? What is the velocity after 10 seconds has elapsed and zero distance was traveled towards the center of the earth? How about 2 hours? You got some 'splainin' to do!

How does a mass exert a force on the ground, and what does it mean to say 9.8 m/s^2? Why haven't you explained the acceleration of the ball?

g is directed downward? So the earth accelerates down to the ball too just like the ball goes down to the earth? Two downs make two ups too, no?

That's one hell of a fairytale. Now we have 4 major tales, The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God, and tales of rocks magically attracting each other. Outstanding tale there, Aqueous! Can you explain further how rocks magically attract each other? I really want to hear it!!

 

No, the Big Bang theory is based on all 4 fundamental forces of nature, of which gravity is just one.

 

It falls all the way to the ground unless something else is in the way.

That depends on how far it fell, and whether or not it had an initial velocity.

Whatever velocity you gave it when you released it.

That depends on how long it was falling and whatever the initial velocity was.

Zero.

Zero.

Zero.

I said it twice before, I'll say it a third time. There are two forms of force. For a body falling to Earth F=mg describes the dynamic force exerted on the body to place it in motion, subject to the Earth's gravitational acceleration g=9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Once the ball lands, it presents the static force F=mg in which g is the constant of proportionality relating the amount of static force to the mass.

By Newton's law of universal gravitation.

It means the value of the gravitational potential on Earth is about 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup].

For the fourth time. A ball dropped to the ground is acted on by a dynamic force F=mg, which accelerates the ball to the ground at g=9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup].

Yes. That is why the ball falls down and not up or sideways.

For the fifth time.A ball dropped to the ground is acted on by a dynamic force F=mg, which accelerates the ball to the ground at g=9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup].

The ball was dropped. It fell. The Force that caused it to move at all was F=mg.

All bodies with mass are subject to the universal law of gravitation. For the case of the small object falling to Earth, or resting on the ground, F=mg. That is to say, this is a simplified case of the law, for which m is much smaller than the mass of the Earth.

 

I must be daft... because i can not see the relevance of the above to the post quoted nor to the question at hand.

what does predictability got to do with it? Why bring predictability into the discussion?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

now this is of value and interesting, thanks... but I wonder in the chemical exchanges was there a need to defy gravity? [ie. one atom having to stack on top of another after resisting gravitational attraction to do so, unless you are considering the chemical activity, in other than, 3 dimensional terms]

the law of gravity is pretty simple and all that is required for this particular thread IMO
Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

 

I specifically stated that the beach ball was on the beach. What is this "falling" you speak of? There is a ball on the beach. That's it! It was there at 2:00 PM, and it remained there until 3:00 PM. For 1 hour it was on the beach. Why are you talking about falling?

It fell a distance of 0 meters. The distance between the ball and the center of the earth did not change from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. So I guess you could say that the ball had an initial velocity of 0 m/s towards the center of the earth, and it remained 0 m/s for an hour.

The ball was on the beach the entire time from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. It did not move compared to the center of the earth.

The initial velocity was 0 m/s, and the ball was on the beach for 1 hour.

Good!

Very Good!

Awesome!

Whoops, we're back to square 1. There are not two forms of force, there is 1, and it's called...wait for it...FORCE! There is not a dynamic force and a static force, there is...wait for it again...FORCE! Hint: There is no magical attractive force. Objects don't attract each other.

Which has proven to be incorrect, correct? You are trying to feed me OLD outdated, previously debunked BS?

So 9.8 m/s^2 is a potential? It's an acceleration potential? Is that what it is? Can you explain further how this potential works?

But the ball was on the beach, so where does the 9.8 m/s^2 come into play? Show me your numbers and equations of the ball on the beach from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM!

But a direction of travel in space is one direction, and if that direction was going towards a body in space, and then passed that body and traveled away from that body, then are you saying that the direction of the traveler changed, or did the direction of the body in space change? Do you know what direction is? Let's hear it.

Too bad the ball stayed on the beach, eh? Show me the numbers, and it better show how 9.8 m/s^2 is calculated! Please don't leave out the 9.8 m/s^2!!

The ball was at rest. Do you know what "at rest" means? Do you have a standard definition for "at rest"? Like say you were in space in a spaceship, nothing around to relate to. How do you know you're "at rest" or not? Don't skip the juicy details, I want to hear it! All of it!! Are you sure you understand acceleration like you say you do, Aqueous? I'm having serious doubts. You sound like you're trying to convince me that there's a magic thing going on out there that we all should be aware of, but I have strong doubts! You appear to be trying to pull a fast one by claiming you know how 2 rocks attract each other, let alone that you can prove that there is an attraction. All words and no logic, or explanation. Just religion.

All big burning balls in space throw heat at smaller balls in space, and that forces the smaller balls further away! Do you need me to break it down further for you?

 

Um... yes they do. It's called gravity.

 

So your thing is to avoid previous questions from me, and then when you think you have a chance to get a word in you go for it? How about you first answer the questions that you avoided, and then, after that, feed me your line about how rocks magically attract each other? If you can't explain it to me then your views are religion. Cut and dry! You have faith that rocks have magical abilities to attract other rocks towards them.

 

Hi Sarkus, MD.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sarkus, I think what MD is trying to point out to you is that gravity is not mutual 'attraction' towards a mutual central (barycenter) location, but a respective following of an energy-space motional trajectory that brings them together if they are following convergent trajectories.


MD can clearly see that you saying "Two rocks ATTRACT each other" is like saying that two cars 'attract each other' by following their respective road directions which are converging at a cross-roads.

The cars don't attract each other, they are following their converging roads trajectories. That's all. No magic 'attraction involved between the cars being brought to convergence by following their respective PRE-EXISTING roads/paths converging somewhere.

The question of what makes those trajectories/roads to converge is another matter. GR has it that space itself 'pushes' the rocks together as they follow space-curvature which converges at a common point between the rocks. I leave you to make your own mind up about that.

Motor Daddy, is that what you are trying to point out?

Cheers, guys!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have a great attitude, Undefined! Always a smile and a "Cheers, guys!" and personalized hellos.

Awesome!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, yup, that was my point, that there is no "attraction." Imagine you have a pool stick and you can use it to force a white ball. You can force the white ball to hit another ball, which hits another ball, which may hit a cluster of balls. It's all force. Not attraction.

A burning ball of fire in space doesn't convince you to come closer, it fries your ass until you leave! It forces you to leave!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because you brought it up. You asked whether the ball was accelerating.

Then it didn't fall.

As I said before there are two forms of force, static and dynamic. If the ball is stationary, only the static force applies. So none of the rest of this has any bearing.

Then dyamics do not apply. Only statics. F=mg describes the static force of the ball on the ground.

Only the static force F=mg applies.

When we say there are two forms of force, we are referring to two possible ways a force can act on a body. If the body is free to move, as in the case of dropping the ball, then the force on the ball due to gravity will act on the ball by accelerating its mass in the amount of g. If the ball is not free to move, because the beach is in the way, then there can be no motion. We call the force acting on the ball a static force because it does not accelerate the ball. The force transmits onto the beach in the amount F=mg. Therefore a ball of mass 1 kg will transmit a force of 9.8 Newtons onto the beach.

There are two cases for the same cause of a force of magnitude F. We call these "static" and "dynamic" as a matter of convenience.

The universal law of gravitation states that wherever mass exists there exists a force field emanating from the center of that mass. Further, any mass that is immersed in the field of another mass will be acted on by that force field. If the body so acted upon is unrestrained (nothing to prevent it from moving) then the force will act on the body according to F=mg, that is, it will accelerate the body in the amount g.

I am stating the universal law of gravitation, as it applies to the case F=mg for a ball sitting on a beach.

Yes.

It's an energy potential.

Potential is the amount of energy something contains.

It's the amount of potential from the gravitational field which acts on the mass of the ball to produce a force in the amount F=mg.

F=mg and F=mg.

What is that one direction of travel of the Earth in the space around the Sun?

Direction is relative. A car approaching you may be moving away from me.

Direction is relative to a designated starting point. The car moving away from me is moving toward you.

Begin with the universal law of gravitation. Substitute the mass of the earth for one of the m's in the equation. Apply the value for G, and the radius of the earth r, and calculate. The result is F=mg, where g is approx. 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup].

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

That's the result of the calculation.

g = mass of earth x G / r[sup]2[/sup].

You said it was at rest on the beach. It is not moving with respect to any observer standing on the beach.

All you can say is whether anything is moving with respect to the ship.

F=ma is the general rule. The object acted on by gravity, if it's free to fall, will accelerate at g.

The universal law of gravitation is a law of nature. It was discovered subsequent to Galileo's observation that Jupiter had its own moons which circled it. This was heresy against the religion of the day, which claimed that the universe orbited Earth. Galileo was quick to realize that if any planet could be the center of orbit of any moon, then any planet could orbit any other center of rotation. He nearly lost his life from stating this. He did remain under house arrest and his work was banned. But once it was discovered that Jupiter possessed this magical quality of holding a moon in orbit, and that each of the planets is magically held in orbit around the Sun, scientists began to search for any information leading to the explanation of that magic.

Enter Johannes Kepler. By careful study of all of the charts of the planets then known, he was able to determine the shapes of the orbits and the rates that the planets move within those orbits. He discovered that the orbits were elliptical, with the Sun at one of the foci. He discovered that the planets swept out an equal area in equal time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Isaac Newton questioned the magic which was causing this. At the time mathematics was not advanced enough to go further. In the process of comparing the magic of reality to the limits of math, Newton discovered a new branch of math called calculus. When Newton applied calculus to solve for the cause of the magic, he discovered the Universal Law of Gravitation.

Ignoring the observations that the moons of the planets are not propelled by heat, nor that the satellites orbiting Earth speed up or slow down when facing the Sun or behind Earth's shadow, the planets accelerate when they approach the sun, rather than to be propelled away from it. Further, when the planets reach the farthest distance from the Sun, they slow down, reverse course and begin racing toward that heat source.

 

And what gives rise to those trajectories being followed?
Whether you want to look at it as a push or a pull is ultimately irrelevant, as the cause remains the same: gravity.

When the existence of one car causes the other cars steering wheel to point to it, that is attraction by any other name. That they may not be able to turn the wheel sufficiently to be able to actually intersect does not negate the mutual attraction through gravity. It just means the force of that attraction is insufficient to overcome preexisting velocities to enable intersection.

Push or pull are equivalent, but until we know the mechanisms behind it, it is sufficient to know what it gives rise to.

 

If I think there's a glaring error in understanding, I'll go for that first, in the hope that it answers/resolves the rest.
No point in repeating the same point 20 times when once might suffice if properly targeted.
Besides, Aqueous ID is doing a good job in providing the detailed explanation. But hey, if you still can't understand then maybe it is all just religion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!