??? What Is Gravity ???

Opmmur

Time Travel Professor
Messages
4,875
Einstein,

I welcome any comments you may have on the postings above. I agree with you facts always outweigh theories. I believe in know a lot about gravity, you can always learn more about the subject. Thank you for taking the time to post your information.

Professor Opmmur
 

Opmmur

Time Travel Professor
Messages
4,875
Einstein,

The posted information above is about 18 to 12 years old for my library of information. Most of the information I have is in paper form and I do not have a way to scan the paper documents that I have.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
3,906
Okay F = MA = Weight.

The equation is supposed to represent an inertial acceleration. So let's do a visualization of an inertial acceleration just to see if everything matches up. I'm sitting in my car, I press down on the gas pedal causing an applied force on the driving wheels that propels the car forward. The car starts to accelerate in the forward direction. I notice the sensation of weight pressing me into the seat in the opposite direction of the acceleration. There appear to be three vectors. So lets write down this information using the rules applying to vectors.

Applied force = F
Inertial weight = W
Acceleration = A

F = -W + A

This equation is fact. It represents something in the real world. But it doesn't seem to match F = MA. Hold on though. Let's try some algebraic manipulation to see if it is just an altered form. Remember the algebraic rule that whatever is done to one side of an equation must be done to the other side. So let's take a look and see what happens.

F + W = W - W + A
which simplifies to
F + W = A

Now Force and Weight can be combined to represent either force or weight so let's set F + W = F' therefore:

F' = A

Looks to me like it's getting close to F = MA but not quite. Remember the algebraic rule that whatever is done to one side of an equation must be done to the other side. So let's take a look and see what happens.

F'M = MA

Still no cigar. In fact the equation no longer represents something in the real world because I introduced mass. Something that is not in the original observation. But what is interesting is that using vector math we discovered that force is equivalent to acceleration. You don't have to believe me. You can go pick up an algebra book and research the rules for vectors and verify this for yourself.

This is right out in the open for anyone to see. Yet it appears that we are all just blind sheep following the herd. This kind of made me wonder just why Newton would have done something like this. So naturally I had to get a copy of his book called the "Principia". Newton spoke and wrote Latin. So I decided to get both an original copy and a translated copy. I wanted to see for myself just how Newton did this. I read through the relevant sections in my search. I believe the Principia has been altered. Newton refers to centrifugal force being described as velocity squared divided by radius. Those are the dimensions of Acceleration. Apparently whoever did the alterations missed altering his centrifugal force statements. Get this book and see for yourself. There are copies in Latin and English available for free download on the net.

So you might wonder what I think about the Higgs Boson being responcible for mass.

Pfffft!
 

Opmmur

Time Travel Professor
Messages
4,875
Thank you Einstein,

I don't think I can comment on any of this, it is so well put together that makes complete sense to me.

I wished, I was able to simplify so many things in physics as you've just did with acceleration.

Speaking of great books: I have a book I purchased 15 or 20 years ago. It is the complete writings of Albert Einstein in longhand, with his crossed out words and new thoughts written in the margins. (his personal notes on relativity)

Professor Opmmur
 

start at edge

Member
Messages
442
There are a lot of interesting aspects mentioned here, but one of them in particular got my attention – “No one has measured the speed of gravity”.
Every time I am put face to face with such an interesting and challenging issue, my mind feels happy just by being challenged and by being given something to work on. I think of myself as being atypical (also nonconformist) and probably that is the reason why in such situations I always make scenarios and try to picture everything (regarding the given subject or issue) in reality, rather than searching answers, whether in written material or on the internet and every time Ockham's razor principle seems to be proven right.
In this particular case, all this thinking made me come to the conclusion that the speed of gravity (actually its effect) is infinite. I’ll try to dig a little into this:
Let us say we have 2 objects that have a mass (let us say m1 and m2, although this is not important) and those 2 objects are 1 million light-years apart. The gravitational pull between them is indeed weak due to the huge distance, but it is there (it is not zero). To have a strong reference point, let us assume that m1 is 1 million times bigger than m2, just to be closer to the situation that m1 is not moving, only m2 does that (even though m1 is actually also moving, but 1 million times slower), so we refer only to m2. I could not find any common sense reason why m2 would start moving (proof of gravitational pull – weak but non zero) towards m1 only after 1 million years (having in mind that light speed would be the upper limit – which it is not) starting at a certain point in time. TIME prevents us from having 100% accuracy in this case, because one could say “OK, but gravity maybe was there since at least 1 million years already”, so I had to make some sort of “reverse” scenario:
m2 (the smaller object) simply explodes (for whatever reason), and its mass (all of it) is instantly converted into energy … does this mean that m1 will stop “feeling” the lack of gravitational pull only after 1 million years (or after some other period of time, according to the “supposed speed” of gravity) ??? – NO, the gravitational pull “felt” by m1 would disappear instantly, as one can not have gravitational pull towards something that does not exist in the present but existed in the past.
For others it may not be something obvious, but for me it is – something happens to TIME if a certain mass is (or is not) there.
 
Last edited:

steven chiverton

Senior Member
Messages
1,967
i used to hear the funny line there is no gravity the earth sucks? so if yous want to experiment and use things to try find out heres a start i used to by schematics from this place online and download them instantly after i gave my card details

 

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Messages
1,903
gravity is like radio
it has a speed

like how voltage signals are at the speed of light.
electrons don't travel that fast.

gravitational acceleration is just like electrons in a conductor with AC oscillation. Electrons don't go fast, only their EM fields do. So the speed of matter is NOT the speed of gravity.

are the speeds of electrons in conductors the speed of the voltage signal? No.
 
Last edited:


Top