Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

There is no force at all without the field. The field, acting on the mass, produces the force which accelerates the mass in the amount g, unless the object is restrained, in which case it transmits a force F=mg onto the the surface that is restraining it.

The direction of the field determines the direction of the force. The direction of the gravitational field is toward the Earth. The force is directed toward the Earth. The acceleration is directed toward the Earth.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/GravField.htm

Magnets do. Charged particles do. And masses, due to gravity do, too.

For the 9th time: For every mass M there is a gravitational field g directed toward M which acts on any mass m producing the force F=mg directed toward M. F accelerates m toward M in the amount g.

Except when they don't. :shrug:

The only information you are lacking is that every mass is attended by a field. Once you learn this, you will stop behaving like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YR5ApYxkU-U#t=264

and you will start behaving like this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/onKHbn9b2FM

be sure and check out what he says near 2:10 about the similarity between the gravitational and electric fields.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MD is just being his usual obstinate self. Whenever ANYONE denies the existence of gravity it *proves* they are nothing but a TROLL and fully deserves to be ignored.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm waiting to see if MD is going to tell me the force between magnets comes from collisions. Or heat of the Sun or whatever. Anything but magic. :m:


♫ We don't need no ejamacation / ♫ We don't need no thot cuntrowww

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Heh-heh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, I gotcha. He'll come up with *some* kind of nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Time to leave dem kidz alone, methinks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The worst part about this for me, though, is not knowing whether they are doing it deliberately or not.

 

Until you can show why mass attracts other mass you are in the same category as people who have faith in God. You both have faith in your superstitions.

You are making a claim that rocks attract each other. When you can explain to me how they do that then I'll change my opinion of your superstition, but not before then. You are the one making the claim that there is an attractive force. Prove it!

 

For the 288th time, there is no attractive force which you call "gravity." There is force. Again you fail to explain how the earth is falling towards the sun while it is getting further away? You just don't get it, Aqueous. You don't!

 

So you're saying that the gravitational force hasn't been directly measured for over 200 years starting with Henry Cavendish?

 

Good Morning, Sarkus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ever seen the vacuum and the tin can demonstration? You create a vacuum by condensing steam in the tin can, and the walls of the can implode. They were not 'sucked' or 'attracted' towards each other, they were pushed together by outside pressure/force, not by some 'sucking pressure/force'.

In GR the trajectories are a result of the supposed 'spacetime curvature' which redirects the inertial trajectory towards some gravitational well/body. In my previous analogy: think of the road redirecting the otherwise freely moving car towards convergence with the cross-roads location being the position of the gravitating body whose 'road effect' is redirecting (push forcing, not 'suck attracting') the car towards the crossroads as the car is push-forced to follow the road).

Push or pull are NOT equivalent except in the sense that the RESULT may be the same, but the CAUSE was ONLY 'push' forces. Like I said, the walls of the can were NOT 'sucked' but PUSHED together. The word/sense 'suck' is an INVERT VIEW of the cause/effect. Sure the effect is the same whether you label it suck or push, but the reality is that push force (not absence of push force) did the can wall crushing. There may be the IMBALANCE of PUSH forces acting on the can walls, but the greater PUSH force is what caused the crushing, not the lesser force.

Cheers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good evening, Undefined.

Not true... all you are doing is asserting a convention of one over the other in a given example.
With the vacuum example, the cause is the pressure differential. It can not be stated, other than through a personal preference, convention, and confidence, as to whether the force is a push or a pull, precisely because they are equivalent.
You might say the outside pushes in, but it is equally valid that the inside pulls inward.
It is a matter of convention to claim push or a pull, as the cause is the differential.

Regards.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If a force was measured it was a force. It was not an attraction.

 

What do you see as the difference, other than semantics?

 

Hi again, Sarkus. I trust your evening is going well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Reality is not open to 'convention' arbitrary interpretation. I assert no 'convention', but merely have regard to empirically obervable/verifiable entities and effects based on the real 'factors', not abstract 'conventions'. For example, you already know that CENTRIFUGAL 'force' in a SPINNING washing machine tub is merely a pseudoforce which is merely the inertia of the washing wanting to make its inertial trajectory continue while being pushed aside in a rotational trajectory by the tub walls which are forcing the washing to follow the 'curved' trajectory thereby. The real CENTRIPETALLLY directed force pushes the washing around and not any 'attractive' force towards the central axis of spin. The tub walls themselves are forced to follow curved trajectory because the E-M CENTRIPETALLY directed/active forces in the radial connections between axis and circumference RESIST the centrifugal 'pseudoforce' on the radial arms, and not because the arms/walls are 'attracted' towards the axis.

Attraction term is an 'impressionistic' manner of viewing/speaking in general language usage/context. It has no real business being used in PHYSICS context. The 'attraction' convention YOU use is misleading as to cause, even as it might 'equally well describe' the effective results.

In physics, some thing either resists forces which would tend to change its 'bound-energy state' (a rubber band resisting stretching/breaking), or some thing acts upon another to 'push' (not 'suck') it away from its original trajectory (Gallileo's ramp forcing the marble to follow a curved path to ground instead of straight fall).

When you say "equally valid", you are assuming that the reality of what is the actual cause is 'negotiable' depending on your abstractions/conventions overlays and points of view? In effect you are constraining your 'equally valid' view to ONLY the results rather than the whole reality picture. Beware!....that is not a good approach to understanding the whole reality, as distinct from your own 'abstract/conventions' construct. Yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Force exists and magical attractive forces do not.

Gravity does not work the way Newton thinks it works. Objects do not pull themselves together just because some guy 400 years ago claimed they do. They do not! The earth is getting further from the sun. The moon is getting further from the earth. There is two examples of bodies not getting closer together, but actually getting further apart! And on second thought, ALL bodies behave that way! Bodies in space do not have some magical mechanism that allows them to pull together. That's hogwash BS!

 

Good morning Undefined

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I must say I am in total agreement with the above...switching semantic context is not conducive to healthy discussion.

 

So you're saying there's no gravitational force pulling objects closer together in the Cavendish experiment?

 

I'm saying there is force. You are saying mass attracts other mass. The force between a beach ball and earth while the ball is on the beach is measured in units of lbs of force. You are claiming that because there is a measure of force between the beach ball and the earth that there must be some kind of magical attraction too! But you just can't figure out how, and why, and all that jazz! I now how, and why, and force, and acceleration, and mass, and rotational velocity and speed and radius and light, and locations, and distance, and time, and all THAT jazz! Keep your magic, I'll stick with my knowledge!

 

So you agree that two iron balls in a Cavendish apparatus can be seen to generate a force that pulls them together? And do you agree that the force matches the exact description given by Newton's Laws?

 

I don't agree with anything you say, it's all religion!

 

So you're saying the Cavendish experiment and the millions of times it's been repeated in the last 200 years, is all a fraudulent conspiracy?