Science already knows the magic of gravity

Not you beer your behaviour is normal

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the gravity magic is the total energy of any mass minus the energy of resulting gravity force to another mass?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Im confused, James told me in another thread that the question of the ''magic'' was more Philosophy than science. So I move to the appropriate section to ask about it and talk about the fundamentals , the definition of philosophy, and the post is moved?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still trolling I see. That sentence makes no sense at all and you know it. You are stating that the gravity of the a mass is everything except the gravity of the mass. Nice, real nice. Why don't you just cut it out....

 

No you aren't. You're just screwing with everyone, to get a rise out of them.

 

Gravity falls under the category of "FM" - Fuckin Magic.

You are asking what, exactly? What "is" gravity?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/what-is-gravity.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/what-is-gravity.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=what is gravity&oq=what is gravity&aqs=chrome..69i57.1539j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

The long and short of it is - science isn't entirely sure what gravity is - theories range from a "curvature" in the fourth dimension of space (basically, think of it like a flat sheet, and the "gravity" around an object is that objects "mass" pushing down on the sheet and making a dip that other objects "fall" into) to the possibility of it being a particle/wave (gravitons), to the possibility of it being a combination of other forces in a way we don't know.

Simply put... it is a question we have not been able to answer satisfactorily.

Where you got this idea that gravity has anything to do with the energy of an object, I have no idea...

 

James R did write in the previous thread:

He was calling your pursuit pseudoscience and generically adding that questions about "reality" beyond the description of observable behavior is a matter of meta-physics, which is philosophy distinct from physics. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see below), the meta-physics of a mechanism for gravity is not what most philosophers think of when presented with a bare topic of "meta-physics."

If you want to talk about the definition of philosophy then the philosophy forum was the right forum for that. But you didn't ask that question. You have violated the forum rules by opening up a second thread to advocate the same wrong idea.
Previous thread:

This thread:

What would be the starting point for such a conversation? You already admitted you could not handle the mathematical description of the behavior of gravity that was formed 350 years ago and certainly could not handle the modern description of General Relativity. When presented with reading material on General Relativity you demonstrated no evidence of reading and understanding the material. So if you don't even understand the behavior of gravity, what chance do you have to talk about purported meta-physical mechanisms since you lack the ability to judge if said mechanisms give rise to the observed behavior?

You also don't demonstrate any utility of the conversation. You offer no ideas or position. You propose people instruct you on the nature of philosophy when you have been the worst sort of student. You don't demonstrate that you have the background to make sense of these:

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genrel-early/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

Thirdly, you don't demonstrate any seriousness to use well-formed English sentences to convey exactly what you are thinking and why you are thinking it. This poisons any attempt to discuss philosophy with you. Look at the level at which the above articles are written and compare them to your wasteful, hastifully written posts. If you don't care about your thoughts well enough to express them in precise English, why should we bother to care about them?

 

So if science does not have this answer, am I allowed to make presumptions on the matter?

Can I have a discussion without people saying it is wrong because there is no answer?



I got the idea from thinking about the situation and like any good psuedo scientist tries to be that situation.

 

I care in what I say, but for some reason explaining is harder than the actual thought.


Thanks for the links I will read up on metaphysics.

 

I will play right into your hands if i post an idea with no accepted proofs, my ban will be complete.

I cant answer this obviously.

My ideas are not evidence.

 

Sure. But for the love of god just keep it to yourself. Your insights tend to insult our intelligence.

 

Stop toying with us - it isn't nice.

 

Toying I am just stating the mods advice and not to post without evidence of I i will be banned and to avoid making my own maths up.

 

TO be honest, even that in itself isn't ban-worthy - this issue was that you had several people giving you evidence as to why what you were posting was wrong, and you were choosing to ignore it - that is honest to God intellectual dishonesty

 

Not choosing to ignore it, repeating myself that I already knew what they were posting , trying to tell them stop wasting their time posting what I knew already.

I have been told several 100 times some of the present information by various forums.
In my opinion there is several things I have not had evidence of by logical discussion to prove I was wrong on certain things.

Either way assumption time, I am thinking about an object on the floor, it contains an x amount of total energy. A total energy that is at loss to the larger mass of the earth.

I can not provide my maths that I would make up or try to derive a formula of the process.

On that note , there is not much more to the idea at this time I can add.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here... it has energy... what kind of energy? How is it a loss to the earth?

 

The object has nuclear energy/atomic energy, which ever one of the options defines the energy contained in an atom(s).

Where it is at a loss to the earth is the complex thought, I see the object as an equal of plus and an equal of negative when the object is not subjected to gravity if there is such a place the object could be.

I also think about air and imagine air on a set of pan scales, both pans having an equal mass of air on the scales showing zero on the needle.

We know if we add energy to either one of the air masses, the scales would alter, one mass becomes lighter by adding energy to the air.

We know the scales are hypothetically speaking, but maybe you can see my intent of explanation so far?

 

So what?

No it doesn't.

 

You are not thinking in a hypothetical sense, change the scales to two hot air balloons if you like and only add energy too one of the balloons, what happens to the balloon that energy was applied to?

 

If you add energy to an air molecule such as N2 it would actually become more massive. It is almost like you do not know present knowledge. Imagine my surprise!