I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic force.... doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as electromagnetic forces are so far understood.... If gravity were just a plain electromagnetic force then "we" could all just reverse the polarity between two objects and propel ourselves away from "Things".... like a spaceship could just "force" itself through space by bouncing off or hopscotching from one source of gravity to another.... this is nice science fiction, so far... still, however, "we" haven' t been able to build a motor to do it.... maybe some ETs (if they exist) have.....I don't mean to ridicule.... but I think your proposed factual definition to me regarding gravity as an electromagnetic force requires further explanation or amplification.... you might just well know that what you are saying is absolutely true... but you need to explain it a bit better to my un- scientific "layman's" ignorant mind.... I still ask... can you better define what gravity is?....Is it a "force" that can be "generated"... like electricity.... or magnetism.... or nuclear level weak and strong et al... forces?
>on Jun 2, 9:06 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nominal 9 wrote> > I have nothing to tear away, really.... I don't have any "new" > answers > or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out > whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about > asking where gravity "originates" from? > > jr writes> > On the one hand this turns out to be a simple and illuminating answer. > On the other hand the origination of anything hardly seems to be an > obtainable answer. There is always another open question behind any > solution. What we wind up with are perspectives that are less wrong > rather than all encompassing and stone cold correct. > What I meant to say was “are you with me so far” or “do you have any > serious objections or points of absolute disagreement?” It hardly > seems to make sense in continuing if you have a serious objection so > far. > I have already written where gravity originates from. Gravity > originates from our tactile sense. An action is applied and we sense a > “Force”. Our sense of force is in the effort we apply to an outside > action of resistance. We lift a rock. We push a cart. We drag a sled. > In all these actions we can say that we are acting in response to a > “resistance”. We can ask what causes the resistance. If we ask what > causes gravity while we assume that gravity causes the resistance in > cases (the vertical mainly), we are bound to a path we have defined in > our own image. > We are assuming that the force we exert is equal and opposite to a > force the universe exerts on us. We have defined the resistance we > encounter [mg] as equal to the force we exert. > So how is it we are enabled to do this? The answer is demonstrated > with the function of the balance scale. The balance scale isolates the > quantity mass [m] (because the planet attractor does not act on mass > [m]) which does not change with location. The balance scale also > measures what we feel [mg] where [mg] changes with location because > [g] is dependent on location and not dependent on mass [m]. > So [m] and [g] are consistent attributes of the universe that we can > quantify in units that match what we feel, or weight [mg]. > .is it an "attraction" > jr writes> > We feel resistance. We respond to an attraction. The attraction is not > acting on our weight [mg]. Our weight is a measure of the resistance > we feel. The planet attractor is not acting on what we think we feel. > The planet attractor acts on our atoms. We feel the cumulative > resistance of our acted upon atoms. > generated within the atomic structure of things... drawing everything > together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow > things > are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is > "there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity > is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the > "escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a > metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty" > space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the > atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of > attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long > togetherness... > > jr writes> > See my above explanation. Forget a universal cause called gravity. > What you feel is equal and opposite to the force you exert. The > attraction is on atoms to start, which is electromagnetic. When the > number of atoms gets large enough to over power our subjective sense > of Force in units of “gravity” a collapse to a black hole caused by > our subjective super controller gravity does not occur. > What happens in response to that pressure is a realignment of the > individual atomic electromagnetic fields which realignment results in > a collapse and a super dynamo (super atom) at the cores of planets and > suns that attracts all matter not merely the matter composed of > optimally aligned atoms that we recognize as electromagnetic matter. > Have a good time. johnreed. > > On Jun 2, 7:45 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I have nothing to tear away, really.... I don't have any "new" answers > > or theories to propose... It might be easier if "we" figured out > > whether gravity is some sort of actual energy force..... what about > > asking where gravity "originates" from?.... is it an "attraction" > > generated within the atomic structure of things... drawing everything > > together?.... or is it some sort of "repulsion" whereby somehow things > > are pushed toward one another as long as some modicum of gravity is > > "there", in the "containment vessel of space"... but once gravity > > is ... overpassed... or the gravity field is left behind... then the > > "escaped" things just... spin off.... is gravity contained in a > > metaphorical "fabric of somehow "full" yet apparently "empty" > > space"... or is gravity just contained within the confines of the > > atomic structure of "things", themselves... and once the ties of > > attraction are severed.... so long attraction....so long > > togetherness... > > On May 26, 2:59 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > jr writes > > > If you assume that an attraction called gravity exists between objects > > > in general, because you feel an attraction toward the planet that is > > > equal and opposite to the effort (Force) you apply… and if you want to > > > generalize the effort you apply to the entire inanimate universe as an > > > effort that acts on you by the inanimate universe, the universe can be > > > successfully negotiated in terms that you work against ie, Force > > > which is defined as the product [mass times gravitational > > > acceleration] or [mg]. Since the universe can be negotiated with these > > > concepts we have a pragmatic reason to insure that these concepts are > > > well taught and anything that contradicts the actual veracity of the > > > concepts must do so in an all inclusive manner. > > > > The fact that you can lift a chunk of the planet say, a rock, and it > > > is equal and opposite to your effort and therefore equal and opposite > > > to the effort of the planet means that the planet acts on mass with > > > the effort you apply in all cases. Our convenient mathematical term > > > called mass [m] can be used quantitatively to account for this. > > > > A fact that a planet exerts the precise amount of Force [mg] that > > > you exert to lift any part of the planet allows us to declare that our > > > effort is equal and opposite to the action of the planet. Joe’s > > > effort, Tom’s effort, your and my effort… all equal and opposite to > > > the effort of the planet. The planet just knows how to adjust to our > > > effort when we think that the planet acts on mass. But of course the > > > resistance must be equal and opposite to the effort we expend. > > > > So let’s do some impact experiments in terms of the Force called > > > weight which is also called [mg] but becomes [ma] when working free of > > > the so called gravitational force with quantities like [mv] momentum.. > > > [a] and [g] represent acceleration. [v] is velocity. [m] represents > > > mass. > > > > What we know for certain about gravity is that it is a Force that we > > > feel. It’s magnitude [mg] depends on the product of the magnitude of > > > [m] which does not change with location [g] or [a] which do change > > > with location [g] or [a]. In the case of [g] an increase occurs until > > > it impacts with the planet. In the case of [a] a decrease occurs > > > absent a source of self power. Both an increase and a decrease in > > > speed or velocity change is regarded as acceleration. > > > > I seem to remember that "force"... can be separated into various > > > sorts... gravity...electromagnetic ... and nuclear... > > > then there are other "use" forces as applied in Physics... > > > . > > > jr writes> Yes Force is a term we understand. A term we feel. Gravity > > > is something we feel and initiate in response to something that acts > > > on us. We understand electromagnetic force as a force that acts > > > between atoms. It was once believed that the atoms must be a certain > > > type with a certain ordered internal and external arrangement, to be > > > subject to or to generate electromagnetism. We have created plastic > > > that acts like magnets by modifying a quantity we call spin. Nuclear > > > Force has been demonstrated and no one doubts it’s existence. Force is > > > something we can feel in all cases. The question is: is the force we > > > feel a consequence of an applied Force an inanimate object feels? > > > > When we lift an item is the planet exerting a force on mass that is > > > equal and opposite to the force we exert? Does this mysterious but > > > functional idea have to be correct? Or can there be another “logical” > > > explanation? One can ask why does the quantity mass work so well in > > > conjunction with velocity [v] and acceleration [a] and [g]? > > > > We know that given a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate. A heavy > > > object falls no faster than a light object. On a balance scale it > > > takes more of the lighter objects to balance a heavier object. So we > > > are not balancing the falling part of the object which is [g]. All > > > objects do [g] at the same rate depending on location. The balance > > > scale it self is being acted on by [g] equivalently at location. So > > > what we are comparing is the mass of the objects on the balance scale. > > > > How does weight figure here? The balance scale does not measure > > > weight. Weight changes with location but as you move the balance scale > > > around, you cannot detect this change. The balance scale will balance > > > the same items here or on the moon. But the weight will be heavier > > > here and easier for us to lift on the moon. What has changed is [g] > > > not [m]. [mg] weight has changed also but the balance scale will not > > > show this unless we are lifting the entire apparatus.. > > > > However we can weigh say 2 atoms of hydrogen and > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
