listen to my simple theory of gravity

When the Earth spins toward East,any matter on his surface,higher or lower, resist to this move by own inertia,proportional with own m,
F=ma., correct?
Due to the angular momentum of the Earth,who is a giant gyroscope,this inertial force directed to the West is counteracted by a perpendicular force directed towards the center of the Earth,correct?
This force we may call weight...
So I dont see any gravity whatsoever....
Anyway,if the imponderability(levitation) can be created on the Earth with a spinning machine in the training of astronautes,that means this force is due to a move identical with the reverse move of this machine.We cannot have gravity on the whole Earth and the same time not have it for this particular case.
I don't know why children have to learn crap in school like I did.
Thank you for following.

 

Solaris

Weight is illusion. resistance to angular momentum.

The introduction of 'weight' into arguement nullifies arguement.
angular momentum is not gravity.

ooccam

 

the 'spinning machine' makes it seem like there is more gravity, not less. for that they go underwater or in a plane in free-fall.

and matter on the surface of the earth does not resist the spin of it, cause the matter on the surface of the earth is spinning at the same rate, in order for you to have inertia, they would have to want to spin at different rates.

and if there wasn't gravity, the planets wouldn't stay in their orbits.

 

Eugene
You weigh less at equator than in london.
a spinning machne 'like earth' can make you weigh less.
Weight is 9.75~mpsps in an accelerating ship or on surface of earth.
weight is effect
as both gravity and acceleration produce it.
Both gravity and acceleration exist.
weight is resistance to angular acceleation
and resistance to space curvature in case of gravity.

And this is the really interesting part..
in accelerating ship.. energy is used to accelerate
With gravity bodies.. where does the enegy come from to
accelerate you down the curve of space.
No-one has ever given me an answer to this worth spit.
maybe fat tony will give some input here.. he has a good head.

occam

 

by gravity bodies i suppose you mean planets and stars and the such. because technically everything is a gravity body. where does the energy come from to keep gravity working would be a better way of asking the question, (if i got what you were trying to ask correct). "With gravity bodies.. where does the enegy come from to
accelerate you down the curve of space." i dont think energy is required to push us through space, gravity is forcing us through space. gravity is the cause for all energy though in essence, dont you think? without gravity, matter wouldnt accumulate and rub against each other to create energy. what causes the sun to make its energy is the gravity in itself being so accumulative. but i dont know, now that i just explained that like that, im remembering that all matter is just condensed energy. i guess i shouldve said gravity is what causes the sun to release its energy, not make. how did the energy get forced into matter? gravity allows matter to turn back into energy, but gravity cant affect energy cause energy has no mass, no matter how acumulative it is. so whats the force that acts as gravity for massless things, pulling massless energy back into matter with mass? or does energy still have mass when its no longer matter? i dont know, i gotta do some more thinking cause im getting confused about the conservation of mass and energy. but about gravity, i guess gravity bodies get there gravitational energy from kinetic energy. no, it'd have to be the otherway around wouldnt it? the kinetic energy of the accumulative mass of the matter that makes up the gravity body, gives the body the gravitational energy to propell itself through space. i dont even know if anything i said is 100% accurate, but i guess gravity gets its energy partly from its own attractive forces. im still not to sure on your question, but id have to say that because gravity warps space, and that the particles in a gravitational field had to already have kinetic energy to be around each other in the first place, that their accumulative kinetic energy is what propels their whole through space. or maybe they didnt have kinetic energy to float by each other, they just were drawn to each other by gravity; their collisions would then create the kinetic energy necessary to propell them through space. damnit you made me get lost in my own head with your stupid question. sorry for the longness of my post everybody.

 

yes

what? WHAT? what? who killed newton?

snicker
kinetic applies only when the mass has to stop in a hurry..
lol like an asteroid hitting earth.and here it applies again..
asteriod nears earth .. it accelerates to target. .. where does it get the energy to accelerate.. .. not from the place its going..

you see.. brain bender

dont worry i've been there
i basically ended up where u are..
no answer worth spit.
gravitic attraction.
where does the energy come from to accelerate bodies in newtonian space
as energy IS required to accelerate ship.in flat space
where does energy come from to accelerate it in curved space..

the curve?

occam

 

yeah i kept getting mind fuked by myself and didnt even know what i was spewing out afterword. i dont think the energy comes from the curve, the energy causes the curve, right? kinetic would apply to any moving object wouldnt it? it doesnt really matter though because your question is really asking what the first source of energy was. whatever that was, it somehow got transformed somewhere to the form necesarry to do the thing that you're trying to figure out. i think i got stuck in a loop like this one time trying to figure out how gravitity sustains itself. and dude, i dont know who killed him, but he's dead, and i still think gravity is forcing us through space. maybe i worded it wrong or something, but thats what i meant by it. but thats what your question was anyways, wasnt it? what is the energy supply of gravity?
edit:so's we dont hijack this guys thread on his theory of gravity, should we start a new one about the power supply of gravity occam?

 

Moomoo
well gravity is certainly doing something.. but buggered if i can
see how.
and neither can science.[The energy to accelerate a body towards a large mass seems to come from nowhere.
Where does the energy come from to keep us stuck to the earth for 75 years]
science dont know jack how gravity works.. or time.
both can be described in effect but neither in process.

fat tony once tried to explain it and fell on his face.
and he has a 'brain'

occam

 

yeah science doesnt know where any energy came from. if we could answer your question we'd be famous.

 

This thread has so much scope im not really sure what question is being asked so ill answer the questions I find interesting and probably fall flat on my face because the ones I cant really answer are the most interesting. Though perhaps I should start with my age old caveat about perception. Questions involving space-time inherently ncorporate an aspect of psychology, to take the most obvious example, space-time. No matter how hard I try I have to resort to maths to explain spacetime to some extent, not because im bad at explaining things, though that maybe true, but the human mind thinks in 3D. This is like my old analogy of trying to describe blue to a blind person, to some extent if you don't have eyes, then blue has very little meaning. For example to a photon (light) time has no meaning, I can show this and experimentally show it to be true, but I struggle to picture that existence. Anyway on with the questions.

Im going to try this with elastic this time. If i were to tie two object together with a piece of elastic then I would have to approximation to a field between two objects. If I put into the elastic then I can move them apart. If I let the elastic go then there will b as elastic force. Obviously this is not a fundamental field, the force is the elastic comes from atomic restoring forces within Carbon polymers, but at some level the principle is the same. With gravity, according to general relativity the field that I am manipulating is space time, but think of elastic in your mind. Am I doing any better this time? I can write more tomorrow but I need to go now. Quickly though I have no idea what energy is other than it is a word. I have no doubt that what it truly 'is' will always be hidden to some extent in the same way blue is hidden to someone without eyes. Though its one of the quantities that truely does seem to be fundamental most other things in Science apply to certain areas or apply in certain regimes or a approximations to more complex ideas but conservation of energy applies strictly from the largest scale of cosmology to the weakest interactions in quantum field theory.

 

Hey fat tony, take a look at my thread at

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=307825

and pass along your thoughts, if you could please? I'm curious to see what you've got to say about it, and how far off I possibly am.

 

I think the reson we excelerate when we get closer to an object is because theirs a thining of space around objects and we flow easier threw it. Someone said it was a curve around objects but that just seems a little 2 dimentional. I think space is thined around an object kinda like surface tension around a rock thrown into a pond and taking an atmosphere with it. Where the water meets the rock, I think its less dence so things that are headin twards the object would accelerate when they hit this aria. I think its something like that.

 

yeah einstein's remarkable model of general relativity says that all bodies with mass or energy warp space-time, and all bodies with mass fall through geodesics (sort of path of least resistance) in that curved space-time. The maths is remarkably complex and it describes gravity remarkable well. Yet like any of the forces we're a long way from knowing the truth about them, quantum electrodynamics tells us that two charged particles interact (repulsion or attraction) because a virtual photon that comes from nothing and goes back to nothing, passes between the two charged particles with the relevant information (push or a pull)

 

Incredible stuff! ^ I can see it in my mind but its realy hard to comprehend. Sometimes I set up scenaros in my mind and watch them evolve. I realy wish I was beter at math.

 

MooMooman..
Here we go

Mass/energy[space] creates the curve that results in gravitic attraction..
A selfsustaining backflip [with a side order of chips]

Reality is just so beautifull, so full of wonder.

Occam

 

Tony
i have returned from scatterland..

Personally i did not think you would answer. but you have.
I've always given you an A+ for brain and a B for spirit.. guess you get
an A for spirit too.. lol
"and probably fall flat on my face because the ones I cant really answer are the most interesting"
If only our poor little world held more like you.

Funny enough, thinking in 3D is something my daughter and i were just discussing. It IS NOT a thing that most can do.
3D conceptualising is a 'gift'? I thought it was a part of the standard human package but she has convinced me otherwise.
This does not mean a division between can and cant. But an 'ease'.

PS. you can use math but it will leave most others behind... nyeh.
I'm trying to do it with words.. and it aint easy.
I want as many as can be to stay on this.. it is important.

'If I put into the elastic then I can move them apart. If I let the elastic go then there will b as elastic force'

Move them apart?
They are already apart.
Its the comming together thats the problem.

'but conservation of energy applies strictly from the largest scale of cosmology to the weakest interactions in quantum field theory.'

True. Have never doubted this. [faith]
So, the energy required for gravitic attraction comes from X
And goes back to X [simple form]through inertial impact. Or some quirk of transfer of angular momentum.[complex form]
I suggest space itself. When established by presence of mass/energy.
is a link to [~] That link human science knows not of. A theory only.
Ideas

Occam

 

Want to do some light reading on Gravity? Might clear some things up ...

Gravity (ISBN: 9780716703440)
Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John A. Wheeler
​

That is, if you can get past the price tag.

One of my all-time favorite books ... seriously!

Here's two of the most humorous sayings I hear a lot of people say ...

Gravity sucks things into it ... LMAO!
Gravity pulls ... LOL!
​

Really now, do people actually believe this?

HTML:

 

The reason I used energy as an example is because its easy to conceive. In terms of fundamental physics General Relativity and quantum field theory both think of a field in different ways. Gravity seems to obey General relativity and QFT handles the rest, much of modern theoretical physics is trying to unite this (no idea how that works). But conecptually its the same as a strip of elastic. Two objects coupled by a field (gravity/EM/elastic). If you pull the elastic apart this is analogous to two masses moving apart in a gravitation field. Conservation of energy demands that energy must go somewhere, it is 'stored' in the elastic. Most generally potential energy is defined as an energy associated with a point in space, I can never decide whether thats a cop-out statement or in someways an insiteful comment about the nature of energy.

 

Tony

I have to disagree
The 'elastic' concept is false.
How many elastics do you require for a 7 body problem? a trillion..?
yet it all runs as smooth a silk in RL
Nothing is linked, linked means seperate things.. but reality is no seperate things.. it is a whole.
All is EMBEDDED, but in what?

occam

 

fools all of you

consider why things form spheres... planets and stars, atomic nuclei... its because a spherical form is its lowest energy state... if you take some chunk of mass floating through space, and take a small bit off of it and displace it a certain distance from the chunk... then the chunk of mass will exert a force on the little bit you've moved, to try and pull it back. if however a force is applied opposite to the direction of the gravitational pull to ensure the little nugget dont move, then that nugget is said to have a potential energy... remember that energy is simply force over a distance... the potential energy just means that there will be a force applied over a distance (metres from the chunk's centre of gravity) and the product of these two quantities is said to be its potential energy.

our universe's point of lowest energy would be all in a singularity like before the big bang i suppose, the very fact that we're all spread out means that we've got a lot of energy.

there are four and only four forces in the world. and whoever laughed earlier at the idea of saying gravity pulls... well it does. forces are either pushes or pulls, and everything else is simply the vector sums of all these tiny pushes and pulles.