# Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Sarkus, Mar 24, 2014.

1. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
But it is the forces by which that perceived 'pull' and 'push' is effected in reality physics that was the point. And nature in reality has only 'push' forces which in effect can be viewed via arbitrary POVs as 'pull' in observed effect, but it boils down to 'push' forces interacting at the QUANTUM level. If you don't get that subtle reality physical POV, not arbitrary 'perceived' POV, then you miss the reality and remain in a subjective POV 'comic book version' of 'reality' that doesn't exist/act the way your perception POV has you 'believing'. Cheers.

Messages:
21,703
There are pulls and there are pushes in nature.
Sometimes either choice is valid and acceptable and a matter of interpretation and PoV.

In GR gravity is neither pull or push, it's purely geometry. If you fall you don't feel pushed but rather 'drawn' towards the floor, so in that manner you can use a 'pull', and we do. To describe a free fall as something pushing is not what you experience, it's rather a absence of 'force'. And a magnet can pull, you just need to hold it above a nail to see it lift, getting 'pulled' towards the magnet.

The 'force' stopping your geodesic (free fall) on Earth is the floor, applying a 'push' equal to the 'pull' one might define gravity as, from that perspective. And gravity always comes together with mass, which is why one can define it as a pull, as that is how we experience it, observing stuff around us. 'Mass attracts mass' as the saying goes. As for if 'pull' doesn't exist? We define it as existing, how would you explain a car towing a another car from a perspective of 'pushing' it? The forces we define all come from what we see, relative a 'inertial point of view' (being 'still'), as our Earth.

Now let's forget the uneccessary pedant and semantics.

5. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,288
Hello. Do you have any support/links for the reality of "push" rather than "pull" that I could read, please?
I've always thought that, even at the minutest level, the "push" or "pull" was just a matter of a "-" in the relative vector quantity.
A push is a negative pull; a pull is a negative push etc.
We can model with one or the other to the same end, just by sticking a "-" at the start.
But I am unaware of reality being one over the other, although my understanding in this area is clearly limited.
So please could you provide me with a link to where it is shown that reality works exclusively with "push"?

Thank you.

7. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
I answered that: the Earth's kinetic energy due to its initial velocity before it was captured by the Sun exerts a force which is directed away from the Sun.

Yes, that's correct. We are in an elliptical orbit that left its closest approach in January. We reach our maximum in July, and then from July to next January we gradually get closer to the Sun. Elliptical orbits were the basis for the Universal Law of Gravity. There can be no orbits without gravity.

It sounds like you haven't understood that the Earth is being pushed away from the Sun by its own kinetic energy.

8. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Undefined lives outside of reality so he wouldn't have noticed that attractive forces are just as real as repulsive ones. He should make a note to himself that says THIS IS AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE, BLOCKHEAD and stick it to his fridge with a magnet.

Of course he's just a perpetual troll.

9. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
You failed to even mention the word acceleration in your response to my acceleration question? Are you a politician?

Away from the sun? I thought you said it was accelerating towards the sun?

10. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
I told you in the earlier post that the acceleration away from the sun is a=v[sup]2[/sup]/r.

That's due to gravity. The acceleration away from the Sun is due to the Earth's kinetic energy.

11. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
Accelerating away is not magical gravity accelerating towards, though, is it?

What? Do you maintain that gravity is an attractive force that makes objects come closer together?

12. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
The Earth is both accelerating toward the Sun and accelerating away from it. The vectors are orthogonal (at 90 degrees). The gravity vector is directed toward the Sun and the acceleration due to kinetic energy points in the direction of Earth's heading--sideways, away from the Sun.

Gravity is the attractive force that gives astronauts their weight on Earth. They lose their weight in orbit because the attractive force diminishes by 1/r[sup]2[/sup].

13. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
What a fantastic trick! How is it written mathematically, 9.8 m/s<>^2? Are you sure Einstein would agree with you?

The gravity vector? The earth is moving away from the sun, and you claim that an imaginary "gravity vector" is keeping that rate of outward progression in check? So if not for this imaginary gravity vector the earth would be moving away at an even greater rate than it currently is, correct?

But they are traveling a greater distance in space per revolution of the earth than they are standing on earth, correct?

Messages:
21,703

Both the Earth/Moon system, and the Earth/Sun system, are increasing in their respective orbital paramaters, due mainly to tidal gravitational Interactions, and in the case of the Sun, it gradually losing mass.
This tidal gravitational effect with regards to the Earth/Moon system, is also slowing the rotational rate of Earth through friction.

Now if you have some other magical insight into why those observations occur, then write up a scientific paper on it, and get it peer reviewed. If you are not smart enough to do that, then I suggest, you are not smart enough to explain the observations under discussion with an alternative accepted valid reason.

15. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
I don't have magical insight like Newton and Einstein did. Why should I write a paper?

So you're saying that if I'm not smart enough to write a paper that changes people's long held beliefs that I'm not smart enough to why they're wrong?

Messages:
21,703

17. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
So what?

I'm not wrong. I'm just not smart enough to overturn one's faith in their religion.

Messages:
21,703
That's OK, your choice to live in ignorance.

What religion? You mean mainstream science?
So mainstream science is wrong but you alone have the answer?
How about the myriad of other alternative stuff put on this forum by others just as delusional that they have the answer...

In actual fact your's and others paranoid perception that one must not be a sheep and agree with the mainstream and create some other illusions of being able to think for ones self, is no more then ego boosting, tall poppy syndrome and delusions of grandeur.
In reality, to automatically look for alternative answers just for the sake of the illusions I have spoke of, is not really smart. Just saying.

19. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
How does me not writing a paper make me ignorant? I can see, however, how me not writing a paper would keep you ignorant.

I never suggested for you to not be a sheep. I would suggest that you stay a sheep.

Messages:
21,703

Your ignorance stems from your anti mainstream bias...and the desperate illusions you are under that it's cool to be controversial...even when you are wrong.

I'll stay informed, I won't entertain any delusions of grandeur and pretend I know better then the rest of 20th, 21st century physics.
If that's being a sheep [as distinct from a goat] then Baaaaaaaaa

21. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
Your incorrect assumption that I'm ignorant is...well...ignorance on your part. BTW, what does that have to do with the fact that you claimed I'm ignorant for not writing a paper. How so?

Sheep aren't smart enough to stay informed.