Damn Nominal 9 I have copied the opening salvo you reference. Here it is "Gravitation , or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.
Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations." jr writes> I say that is mostly all a crock of shit. Almost every last word. The planet attractor acts on your atoms and your atoms are proportional to your mass. Your mass acts on nothing. So this states that gravitation is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass.. I say that weight is something we feel in response to an attraction of our atoms toward a planet. We then call something we feel a force and assign this force that we feel to the universe as controlling. OK well dig it. I am weary from the day's activities right now. Negotiating this garbage in particular is what I have been doing all along. Reading it almost makes me gag. So I will copy this and retire to my chamberse and get back later. I will send this now. I will return. 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... > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
