What is Gravity?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 5th, 2016, 3:33 pm

On the other hand, if it is a pure pulling force, then why would the moon not be pulled towards the earth. The moon appears to be synched up with the earth, like caught in a magnetic orbit. The spin of the moon relative to the sun, is once per its monthly orbit of the earth.

This "magnetic locking" you mention is extremely interesting, and from what I've learned from looking at Simon's science, it is a much more prevalent phenomenon than we have even previously understood.

Our little "universe" here around the Sun, Earth, Moon, Mars, etc. is truly like clockwork.

If you wanted to explain this as "gravity" (a rather outmoded word associated with Newton's alchemical studies, at this point, as far as I'm concerned) then we should include what is traditionally called "anti-gravity" in the same definition. Since that merely confuses things and divides what may be a selfsame force into "attraction" and "repulsion", we might want to start with something more basic and compare gravitational effects to an electromagnetic like determiner without needing to specifically define that yet.

That is, all three effects — "buoyancy" ("anti-gravity") and "gravity" (Earthly objects, the rare celestial matter such as meteor materials being drawn to the Earth and observed parallels on nearby planets serving as our only proof of a universal gravity that is said to exist throughout the known universe) and "magnetic locking" (such as the clockwork and seemingly miraculous whole-number rhythms of the observable spheres in our Earth system) — might be read as a single kind of force: one that "works out" (without necessarily implying intelligence behind it) what is seemingly "attracted" or "repelled" from what, and in what rhythms and patterns (something like cymatics perhaps) that these things appear to be.

Anyway, I think you are onto something. Keep up your studies, aa5 and let us know if you find out more!

My personal suspicion is that we may need to get away from the idea that these phenomena are totally understood and "solved" within observable phenomena of the universe made of human senses and known particles like electrons. There may be something "underlying" (or "overlying" but in any case harder to observe) that determines what we merely discover as "gravity" and "buoyancy". This is probably why mathematical attempts to define the universe's activities have to invent things like the "graviton".
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby aa5 on June 11th, 2016, 1:10 pm

Thanks Hoi. You are right about the wording. Scientific terms are loaded with assumptions. When developing a theory on your own, you basically need your own terminology. And the terminology needs to be very, very precise. For example on Wikipedia there is 6 different definitions in science of the word 'Force', depending on which formula and area of science one is talking about.

If trying to explain a crazy idea to friends, if your terms are the same terms as already used in science, those words will come pre-loaded in your friends mind with all sorts of assumptions. Which will make it very difficult for them to understand what you are talking about.

Terms & definitions I am using:

Gravity: The 'pulling' force towards the center of the Earth(or other large celestial body).
Anti-Gravity: Our proposed 'pushing' force emanating from the center of the Earth, that balances out with Gravity in the case of the moon for one.

Force: F=Mass*Acceleration. Eg.. the force of gravity accelerates objects down at 9.8 m/s not factoring in buoyancy.

Centrifugal: A circular momentum headed outwards.
Centripetal: A circular momentum headed inwards.

Momentum: The accumulated forces embedded in an object. So a 5,000,000 pound boulder travelling at 10,000 km/hr in space.. well that is going to release a hell of a lot of energy if it smashes into something.

I was thinking about this pulling force of gravity. And if I had a ball at the end of a rope, and whirled the rope around me until the ball was 'orbiting' me. I noticed that it take me applying a little bit of pull to hold onto the rope. Against the centrifugal force outwards of the ball. On the other hand it took me whirling it around(applying a force) to get that momentum of moving away from me.

I believe even without air resistance, that the constant pulling from my hand on the rope, would eventually sap the momentum of centrifugal force outwards (slowing down the ball's orbit). And then if I continued pulling, the ball would be brought towards me. Until eventually the ball would go into my pulling hand. (simulating the pull of gravity).

On your clockwork point. I was listening to scientists saying that the universe will end in entropy, everything tends towards this randomness/chaotic. Yet I look at our little solar system, and it looks amazingly orderly to me. People 500 years ago said its like clockwork - yep we even set our calendars to it. People 5 years ago said, its almost like a computer.
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby aa5 on August 16th, 2016, 5:01 am

I am reading 'A Theory of Natural Philosophy' by Roger Boscovitch, written in 1763. I found out about the book, as Tesla said it was his favorite book. Boscovitch was a Croatian philosopher, who shocked the scientific world of the day with his theory, causing massive debate. He starts from some simple observations and philosophical axioms, and then step by step goes unimaginably deep into what the nature of the universe must be, to produce those end results. It is the most beautiful & brutal use of logic I have ever seen.

He presents the following scenario: Two objects of the same shape and mass are travelling in the same direction. Object 1 is in front and is travelling at 6 miles per hour(mph), object 2 a distance behind object 1 is travelling at 12 mph. Alas object 2 catches up to and slams into the back of the object 1. With the law of the conservation of momentum the end result of this collision is that object 1 is accelerated to 9 miles per hour, and object 2 is decelerated to 9 miles per hour.

The law of continuity means that an object cannot decelerate from 12 mph to 9 mph, without transitioning through all of the velocities between those two numbers. Remember Xeno of Greece, where you find a really small difference in the change of velocity like 0.0001 mph, and he always finds a difference yet smaller?

Unfortunately for the conventional wisdom, this means that while object 1 is transitioning from 6.00 mph to 6.01 mph to 6.02 mph, object 2 is simultaneously transitioning from 12.00 mph to 11.99 mph to 11.98 mph. But this cannot be because then object 2 would be moving faster than object 1, and they were already touching each other during this transition of velocities! And therefore object 2 would have to move inside of object 1, which isn't possible & does not happen in the real world.

The only answer must be that there is a repulsive force between matter at very small distances. And this force must rise towards infinity in a parabolic manner, the closer the two units of matter get to each other. As imagine object 2 was travelling at 12,000 mph and object 1 still at 6 mph. The repulsive force generated would have to be much greater in this case owing to the greater velocity difference to close & worse, there would be less time for the repulsive force to act, again owing to the greater velocity difference.

This becomes the formula, the force of repulsion = (1 / distance between objects) squared. Which is another part of a complex curve that includes Newton's observation that the force of attraction between two objects.. gravity = 1 / (distance between objects squared)
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby aa5 on October 23rd, 2016, 11:54 am

An interesting formula I came across is that the magnetic attraction or repulsion between two magnets is proportional to the same inverse square law as Gravity. The same goes for the pull/push between two electric fields. And the intensity of light also falls by the inverse square of the distance.

The reason for this, is that the surface area (A) of a sphere grows at A = 4(pi)(r-squared). r being the radius of the sphere.

For light I get that there is a light source illuminating in all directions equally. So if I go twice the radius that I currently am, away from the light, the intensity of the light beams will be one quarter what they were at my former location.

But for magnetism I imagine circular field lines around the magnet. As opposed to the light which shoots out at straight lines. There must be 3d spherical waves or something emanating from the magnet in order to have this fall off in strength as the radius grows. From my early reading on magnetic fields it sounds like the field lines just appear out of nowhere, but it could be the author's way of writing it or my interpretation of the writing.

I was wondering if you can shield gravity the way you can block light. Or if you can shield against a magnet.
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am


Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests