What exactly is gravity?

Inferno

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
63
Right now, all that people seem to know is that it is related to mass. I don't know how anyone is supposed to build an anti-gravity device when we still don't know what gravity is. My thoughts are that objects of mass naturally bend space in a way that creates the attraction. Only large objects bend space enough to create the pull/attraction. Right now, I do not believe there is any "gravity particle" involved.

What are your thoughts on gravity and how it works?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,592
Don't believe anything you think you know about gravity. It's all theoretical fiction. You can gather your own facts about gravity through direct observation. Direct observations do suggest our concept of mass doesn't apply to gravity.

All objects with gravitational weight have their weight vectors pointing toward the center of the earth. If you'll notice there is no acceleration vector due to the fact that gravitational weight does not rely on motion to create the gravitational weight. So Newtons law F=MA doesn't work with gravity. So inertial weight and gravitational weight rely on totally different conditions for their creation. These facts quickly debunk Einstein's theory of general relativity. The Equivalence Principle is not valid.

Then we have objects in gravitational free-fall. In a vacuum these objects accelerate toward the center of the earth in a weightless state. Again Newtons laws of motion do not apply. So gravitational weight and acceleration vectors do occur, but never at the same time. Both vectors point in the same direction but are temporally out of phase with each other. The time vectors for each would be described as 180 degrees out of phase between gravitational weight and gravitational acceleration.

If you'll notice, no concept of mass was needed to describe the way gravity works. Just observable facts.
 

Inferno

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
63
All objects with gravitational weight have their weight vectors pointing toward the center of the earth. If you'll notice there is no acceleration vector due to the fact that gravitational weight does not rely on motion to create the gravitational weight. So Newtons law F=MA doesn't work with gravity. So inertial weight and gravitational weight rely on totally different conditions for their creation. These facts quickly debunk Einstein's theory of general relativity. The Equivalence Principle is not valid.
Just to be sure I'm understanding this correctly, your saying that inertial weight and gravitational weight are not linked because gravitational weight is consistent within its gravitational body(weight doesn't rely on motion) while inertial weight does rely on motion?(How would you define inertial weight?). But how come more mass generally means more weight while in a gravitational field? This would suggest that they are linked somehow.
Then we have objects in gravitational free-fall. In a vacuum these objects accelerate toward the center of the earth in a weightless state. Again Newtons laws of motion do not apply. So gravitational weight and acceleration vectors do occur, but never at the same time. Both vectors point in the same direction but are temporally out of phase with each other. The time vectors for each would be described as 180 degrees out of phase between gravitational weight and gravitational acceleration.
So as an object gets closer to earth, its gravitational weight increases as it accelerates. But why can't it happen at the same time? I'm not understanding how they are temporally out of phase.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,592
Just to be sure I'm understanding this correctly, your saying that inertial weight and gravitational weight are not linked because gravitational weight is consistent within its gravitational body(weight doesn't rely on motion) while inertial weight does rely on motion?(How would you define inertial weight?). But how come more mass generally means more weight while in a gravitational field? This would suggest that they are linked somehow.

So as an object gets closer to earth, its gravitational weight increases as it accelerates. But why can't it happen at the same time? I'm not understanding how they are temporally out of phase.
Don't confuse what you are taught with the observable facts. No mass was needed to describe observable gravitational phenomena. You have to be willing to accept that gravitational mass just may not exist. Even scales just measure a quantity of weight.

An objects weight is weightless when acted on by gravitational acceleration. If you allow an object to accelerate freely in a vacuum under the influence of gravity, the object will be weightless during the acceleration.

Gravitational weight and gravitational acceleration on the same body never occur at the same time. The object is either stationary with respect to the earths radius. Or the object is accelerating towards the center of the earth. These two states don't ever exist for one object at the same time. So mathematically the two states are temporally out of phase with each other.

Inertial weight is something we are taught about in school. Newtons laws tell us about inertial weight. I just examine all the vectors and find out an inertial acceleration is something entirely different than a gravitational acceleration. An inertial force vector points in the opposite direction to an inertial acceleration vector which occurs simultaneously. And both vectors drop to zero when the applied force creating the condition is removed.

A gravitational acceleration can accelerate an object through space in a weightless state. But an inertial acceleration creates an opposing weight state during acceleration through space.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,675
Just to be sure I'm understanding this correctly, your saying that inertial weight and gravitational weight are not linked because gravitational weight is consistent within its gravitational body(weight doesn't rely on motion) while inertial weight does rely on motion?(How would you define inertial weight?). But how come more mass generally means more weight while in a gravitational field? This would suggest that they are linked somehow.

So as an object gets closer to earth, its gravitational weight increases as it accelerates. But why can't it happen at the same time? I'm not understanding how they are temporally out of phase.
Weight does not increase with acceleration, unless you accelerate to a significant fraction of light speed.
I see why you don't understand, since the guy you're talking to (I've blocked him) doesn't understand what he's talking about.
There certainly is an acceleration vector associated with weight, for example. After all, "weight" is actually defined as mass times gravitational acceleration (w=mg.)
And F=ma will absolutely give you the amount of force a falling object imparts when it hits the ground.
I believe unicorns violate relativity, and I even know what unicorns are.

Of course, when a poster doesn't even know what they're saying, they can (try to) make anything sound like it disproves or violates relativity.

Harte
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,592
Harte doesn't understand that physical observational science is not taught in school. He keeps spouting the same nonsense we are all taught in school. I didn't make the physical observations. I'm just pointing them out.

You are right about gravitational weight increasing as an objects proximity to the earth is decreased. Assuming the proximity is stationary with respect to the earth. An example would be an object hovering above the earth 4000 miles away. The objects weight would be 1/4 of what it is on the surface of the earth.

I might point out that there is no experiment that proves inertial weight is gravitational weight. Until there is, the two distinct types of weight will forever be different from one another.
 

paulyoung2

Junior Member
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
142
  1. your species has no clue what gravity is
  2. your species is a slave species. MUZZLED slaves as of now will be much worse as i said prior
  3. 75 years of deep state aganda&propaganda to control you and tame you were pretty effective i would say
  4. you never try to even look beyond the icewall in antarctica.. you are born and raised SUBMIT slaves to the system
  5. you are good at getting fat, and love feeling comfy, these are 2 things you are great at.. you are now addicted to deep state owned and operated iphone
  6. it will only get worse from here
 

Inferno

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
63
Weight does not increase with acceleration, unless you accelerate to a significant fraction of light speed.
I see why you don't understand, since the guy you're talking to (I've blocked him) doesn't understand what he's talking about.
There certainly is an acceleration vector associated with weight, for example. After all, "weight" is actually defined as mass times gravitational acceleration (w=mg.)
And F=ma will absolutely give you the amount of force a falling object imparts when it hits the ground.
I believe unicorns violate relativity, and I even know what unicorns are.

Of course, when a poster doesn't even know what they're saying, they can (try to) make anything sound like it disproves or violates relativity.
As an object accelerates closer to earth, its becomes heavier. Objects far enough away from earth are lighter/weightless. This is what he was describing.

I like to try to understand everyone's views on a subject, they tend to have some kind of reason for it. You'll never see me block anyone unless they are spamming, which isn't really a problem on this site.
Don't confuse what you are taught with the observable facts. No mass was needed to describe observable gravitational phenomena. You have to be willing to accept that gravitational mass just may not exist. Even scales just measure a quantity of weight.
The problem is, I can observe mass. Or at least objects being heavier than others. If I have a block of Tungsten and a block of Aluminum of the same size, I can directly observe that one is heavier. How would you explain this without mass?
Inertial weight is something we are taught about in school. Newtons laws tell us about inertial weight. I just examine all the vectors and find out an inertial acceleration is something entirely different than a gravitational acceleration. An inertial force vector points in the opposite direction to an inertial acceleration vector which occurs simultaneously. And both vectors drop to zero when the applied force creating the condition is removed.
I'm having some trouble figuring out exactly what you mean. You are saying that inertial and gravitational forces are different because inertial dissipates over time while gravitational forces remain constant within its field correct?
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,675
If an object gets closer to the Earth, it gains weight. There is no "weight" outside a gravitational field.
Accelerating the object doesn't increase the weight. It just makes the weight gain happen sooner.
Inertial force is fictitious. There's actually no such thing.
9279

Harte
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,592
The problem is, I can observe mass. Or at least objects being heavier than others. If I have a block of Tungsten and a block of Aluminum of the same size, I can directly observe that one is heavier. How would you explain this without mass?

I'm having some trouble figuring out exactly what you mean. You are saying that inertial and gravitational forces are different because inertial dissipates over time while gravitational forces remain constant within its field correct?
Mass is not weight according to the way I was taught in school. I was given a set of equalities: Weight=Force=Mass x Acceleration. But I was never presented with proof that those equalities exist. Just accept it. I was taught that mass is a quantity of matter and its value is considered constant throughout the universe.

Then we come into the real world and things aren't quite adding up. For instance one kilogram is considered to be equivalent to 2.2 pounds. Of course that can't be true. Unless we all were lied to. According to my math 2.2 pounds is equivalent to 9.8 Newtons. But if you go to a balance scale you can prove that 2.2 pounds does indeed balance out equivalent to one kilogram. So what gives? I'll side with the actual observation. What it boils down to is Weight equals Mass. And the measurement is done using the force of gravity. Basically gravitational weight cannot be separated out into mass and acceleration. Since I already demonstrated that an object under gravitational acceleration is weightless. Acceleration and weight are two different things. An object on the surface of the earth is not accelerating. Yet it has weight. Now I did come across an idea stating that space is accelerating downward through objects thus creating an acceleration field. If that could be proven then time machines would be real and also space drives. Prove it first. I'm not a fan of "Assume it to be true".

Inertial force requires the presence of an opposing acceleration vector. Gravitational force does not. This is the primary observable fact that makes Inertial force and Gravitational force different from each other.
 

Top