| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"H. E. Retic" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 03:59:43 PM |
| Object: |
Is There a Force of Gravity? |
Is There a Force of Gravity?
In undergraduate physics, the Newtonian concept of an attractive force
between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the
square of their separation is taught. When one advances to the more advanced
concepts of gravitational theory as posed by General Relativity, the concept
seems to change to where what we experience as a force is really the result of
an inertial acceleration in "space-time".
It behooves us then to examine that concept in detail. Consider two points
on the Earth, perhaps London, England and Melbourne, Australia. In both of
these cities, observers experience a downward "pull " towards the Earth's
center. (We can ignore the centrifugal acceleration caused by Earth's rotation
since, at the most, it represents only 0.3% of the Earth's gravitational
acceleration and consider the Earth to be a closed system for the purposes of
the discussion, all velocities and accelerations are relative to the center of
the Earth and, since both London and Melbourne are nominally at the same
elevation which does not change, considerations of time dilation in the
gravitational field are irrelevant. These clarifications are required because a
pair of individuals whose thinking processes were limited attempted clouds the
discussion by introducing them in response to a previous posting.) Inertial
acceleration is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to
time, and since London and Melbourne are within the closed reference frame
represented by the Earth they do not change their separation with respect to
each other but they do experience the force of gravity as acting in essentially
opposite directions. Since are observed not to undergo spatial acceleration
with respect to each other and the center of the Earth, that observed force of
gravity CANNOT result from an inertial acceleration. It can only result from an
actual force attracting those cities towards the Earth's center in accordance
with the classical Newtonian concept of gravity. It cannot result from a
spatial acceleration in "space-time" as is asserted by specious interpretations
of both Special and General Relativity. The force is REAL. It is much more than
a mathematical abstraction!
In response to a previous posting of this material, the writer received an
E-Mail claiming that the writer was in error. It asserted that Melbourne and
London were really in a "flattened" orbits around the center of the Earth and
experienced the "force" if gravity because they were restrained from following
their null geodesic orbits by the Earth's surface. What appeared to be the
"force" of gravity resulted from that restraint because it prevented these two
cities from following their null geodesic path? This is a rather frivolous
response. If the cities were to fall through the Earth, the inertial force
produced by the resulting second derivative of position with respect to time
and the gravitational force would cancel and the cities would experience no net
force. The attractive force that they actually experience verifies that
gravitational force and inertial acceleration are different phenomena
describing TWO effects, gravitational attraction and inertial acceleration.
There is no way of avoiding the conclusion that the former applies a force as
the result of the proximity of masses and inertial acceleration applies a force
as a result of the second derivative of position with respect to time. It is
only in the never-never world which mathematics allows one to be foolish enough
to consider that they were different aspects of the same phenomena.
As a digression, the interchange of electric and magnetic energy in a
resonant circuit is conventionally treated as a single phenomena and treated by
a single set of mathematics, as is the interchange of potential energy and
kinetic energy when an object is in orbit. In actuality, in the resonant
circuit, the energy is alternately stored in a capacitor as an electric stress
in its dielectric and is stored in the inductor in its magnetic lines of force.
The actions of both of these devices are independently described by their own
mathematical laws. It is only when they are connected together do their laws
combine to provide an action we experience as resonance in which energy is
cyclicly interchanged between the two devices. I can hold a charged capacitor
in one hand and an inductor in the other hand. It is only when they are
connected together that resonance occurs. The same conculsion holds true for
gravitation. Gravitation forces and acceleration forces are independent effects
which, when coupled, account for orbits as if a single process were involved.
The orbital motion results from the cyclical interchange of energy between the
two independent effects.
Mathematics is a useful tool, but it seems to have been forgotten that it
is only a tool, it should never be used as a substitute for the intelligence
needed to understand of the “mechanism(s)” involved. Physics seems to be
the only science that attempts to abolish "mechanism" and rely solely on
mathematics and experiment. This probably results from the fact that
understanding the "mechanisms" which are involved requires an innate talent
that probably cannot be taught in schools and is as rare as the musical
aptitude which allows an individual to play a violin in Carnegie Hall. It is no
wonder that physicists work so hard to relegate the idea of "mechanism" to the
trash bin of history. It avoids the embarrassment of admitting that they do not
understand their subject.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There a Force of Gravity? |
16 Jan 2005 05:50:22 PM |
|
|
"H. E. Retic" wrote:
Is There a Force of Gravity?
[snip 100 lines of ignorant crap]
You again, schmuck?
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems (so does the proposal)
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There a Force of Gravity? |
16 Jan 2005 05:00:08 PM |
|
|
H. E. Retic wrote:
Is There a Force of Gravity?
Background;
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
Planetary Motion
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kepler.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LagrangesPlanetaryEquations.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There a Force of Gravity? |
16 Jan 2005 10:05:59 PM |
|
|
H. E. Retic wrote:
Is There a Force of Gravity?
Background;
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
Planetary Motion
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kepler.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LagrangesPlanetaryEquations.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
