jr.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
can you point to a paragraph or section in the Wiki article to give me a hint as to your own preferred theory regarding gravity? On Jun 6, 10:58 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 7:03 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic force... > > jr writes> You are oversimplifying what I wrote making it > unnecessarily complex. I am saying that in the planet surface case we > have the phenomenon we witness and define as electromagnetism. This > either involves an ordered array of atoms externally or an ordered > array of atoms that are arranged optimally internally… or both (No > proposal here now of the meaning of optimal although I have > entertained that elsewhere).The other “non-electromagnetic matter” is > arranged irregularly enough internally as to not behave > electromagnetically as we define electromagnetism. We witness > magnetism but we feel it secondarily not directly as a pull on us but > indirectly as a pull on a magnet, etc. > > I have explained that gravity is a force that begins and ends in what > we as living objects feel. If our atoms were arranged optimally we > could feel magnetism directly. When our atoms are so arranged we are > in the process of being electrocuted. > The idea that gravity is a separate force from the universe than the > manifestation of a force we feel causes us to invent absurd notions > like blackholes… just as though electromagnetism is subservient to a > force we feel. A force we feel will crush electromagnetism into a > blackhole. A force we feel will cause electromagnetism a problem. Why > is it only me that readily sees the absurdity here? > > Clearly gravity is a force we feel and electromagnetism is a force > that fortunately we don’t feel most of the time. We can say since > gravity is a force we feel it is fundamental and inanimate objects > also are subservient to this force. Except that clearly inanimate > objects are not alive and I assume then that inanimate objects do not > feel anything. So whatever force is acting on us, since it is uniquely > defined by each of our weights and our weights are a function of our > matter and our matter is composed of atoms, then if gravity is the > universal controller, the inanimate object also composed of atoms must > feel the cumulative resistance of its atoms. But since it is not alive > as a body of connected atoms, can at best only feel one atom at a > time. Thus all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum never > recognizing that together they exert a greater force together than > apart. But if they could feel that collective force they would > initially believe in it too. > > doesn't seem to hold too much factual accuracy.... at least not as > electromagnetic forces are so far understood... > > jr writes> Electromagnetism is not understood at all. If it were > understood blackholes would be understood as the foolishness they are. > Blackholes are a direct consequence of our gravitational ignorance. > Like a force we feel will commandeer electromagnetism… er uh the > speed of light. > > . If gravity were just > a plain electromagnetic force > > jr writes> How many times must it be written. Gravity is a force we as > living objects feel. We can define what we feel consistent with a > product of the quantities mass and acceleration. Mass does not change > with location and [g] depends solely on location. The universe is a > least action universe where mass [m] and acceleration [g] operate > within that least action, thus enabling the functional use of > mathematics which is least action consistent in all cases. > > We feel the pull of the planet as the product [mg]. We will feel this > numerical least action consistent quantity everywhere. That does not > mean that the universe is controlled by the force we feel. > > Electromagnetism acts on atoms. Gravity is what we feel acting on our > atoms in total. We work against this cumulative pull. So we have > gravity and electromagnetism each acting on our atoms. Can we get a > consensus there? Gravity acts on atoms. Electro-Magnetism acts on > atoms. > > 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... > > jr writes> You keep on treating the force you exert as the force that > the universe exerts. What you feel and what you apply has been defined > consistent with the universe action. I say that altho’ it is > functional it is fantasy beyond your sense of force. > > this is nice science fiction, so far... still, however, > "we" haven' t been able to build a motor to do it... > > jr writes> Gravity is convenient science fiction. Believe in the > universality of the force you initiate in response to an attraction on > your atoms because it is functional everywhere in the universe that > you feel it and you and those who think like you will invent > blackholes that eliminate the attraction on atoms and make that force > subject to what you feel. Why should the force you initiate also be a > force you respond to? Where the resistance you encounter is merely > defined consistent with a force you feel. > > . 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... > > jr writes> You are correct. If I cannot explain it to others it is > worthless. > > . 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... > > jr writes> I better know what is absolutely false than what is > absolutely true.. > > 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 > > jr writes> OK let’s take nuclear forces. Do we really entertain the > notion that gravity will eliminate nuclear force. Just compress it to > a blackhumanhole immediately after it eliminates atomic forces as it > travels inexorably on its gravitational crushing path based on what we > feel as force when we apply force to resistance, and a rate of travel > that exceeds the speed of…? The speed of light? Everything is > subject to the speed of light? Where light is another sensory quantity > that encompasses EMR because we see illuminated objects? Note the the > description WE SEE and note the description WE FEEL. > > Don’t you think that nuclear forces can respond to excessive pressure. > The extrapolation of what we feel. And is there pressure enough to > cause atomic obliteration? Is there lotsa’ space in atoms. We know > that atoms generate electromagnetism by optimal internal arrangement > in conjunction with external arrangement. We know that such > arrangements cause EM force to extend beyond the confines of the so > ordered atoms. I say that long before a blackhumanfelthole occurs the > nuclear and atomic lines of force will join to counter the measely > human notion of gravitational pressure. A collapse will occur and a > super atom will generate electromagnetism that will arrange control > and attract all atoms, whatever their configuration. Like normal > electromagnetism this super atom will act on atoms, but unlike the > electromagnetism we encounter this super atom will act on all atoms > and we will call it gravity. > Have a good time. > johnreed > > On Jun 3, 7:03 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
