Catch you another time... jr....
If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part....
maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to
gravitation that you agree with most......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
Main article: Alternatives to general relativity
Historical alternative theories
* Aristotelian theory of gravity
* Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage
gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based
explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
* Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early
competitor of general relativity.
* Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early
competitor of general relativity.
Recent alternative theories
* Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
* Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according
to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of
matter
* In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai
Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for
small accelerations
* The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A.
Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass
creation
* Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
* Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic
modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
* Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent
phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
See also
A Swarm of Ancient Stars - GPN-2000-000930.jpg Gravitation portal
* Anti-gravity, the idea of neutralizing or repelling gravity
* Artificial gravity
* Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations
* Escape velocity, the minimum velocity needed to escape from a
gravity well
* g-force, a measure of acceleration
* Gravitational induction
* Gravitational binding energy
* Gravity assist
* Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
* Gravity Research Foundation
* Gauss' law for gravity
* Jovian-Plutonian gravitational effect
* Kepler's third law of planetary motion
* Lagrangian point
* Mixmaster dynamics
* Newton's laws of motion
* n-body problem
* Pioneer anomaly
* Scalar theories of gravitation
* Speed of gravity
* Standard gravitational parameter
* Standard gravity
* Weightlessness
On Jun 7, 10:48 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
