Science already knows the magic of gravity

Im confused, James told me in another thread that the question of the ''magic'' was more Philosophy than science. So I move to the appropriate section to ask about it and talk about the fundamentals , the definition of philosophy, and the post is moved?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I think the gravity magic is the total energy of any mass minus the energy of resulting gravity force to another mass?
Click to expand...
Still trolling I see. That sentence makes no sense at all and you know it. You are stating that the gravity of the a mass is everything except the gravity of the mass. Nice, real nice. Why don't you just cut it out....
 
Gravity falls under the category of "FM" - Fuckin Magic.

You are asking what, exactly? What "is" gravity?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/what-is-gravity.htm
Gravity holds your feet down to the ground because the mass of the planet exerts a gravitational pull on the mass of your body. In fact, gravity stirs up an attraction between any two objects in the universe: moons, dust motes, coyotes -- you name it. Wherever you find matter, you'll find gravity. You could never travel to a gravity-free planet, only one with greater or lesser mass resulting in greater or lesser gravity.

On a larger scale, gravity arranges cosmic bodies into orbits and even causes drifting space particles to pull together slowly into larger and larger clumps that eventually become planets, stars and galaxies. Back in the 1600s, Isaac Newton defined gravity as a universal force acting on all matter. According to his theory, the exact expression of gravity came down to mass and distance. The farther apart two particles are and the less massive they are, the less the gravitational force.

That's Newton's law of universal gravitation in a nutshell, and it stood unchallenged for three centuries. Then, in the 1900s, a wild-haired physicist by the name of Albert Einstein stepped in the ring and let fly with his general theory of relativity.

Einstein argued that gravity was far more than just a force; it was a curve in the fourth dimension of space and time. Given sufficient mass, an object can cause an otherwise straight beam of light to curve. Astronomers call this effect gravitational lensing, and it's one of the primary methods of detecting unobservable cosmic phenomena such as black holes. Similarly, the less gravity there is, the faster time passes, a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. For instance, a clock aboard an orbiting satellite advances slightly faster than a counterpart on Earth's surface.

While Einstein's theory brought gravity up to speed with modern science, we still don't know everything about gravity. Some scientists attribute gravity to hypothetical particles called gravitons, which -- in theory -- cause objects to be attracted to one another.

Finally, there's the field of quantum gravity, in which scientists attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory. Quantum theory addresses how the universe works at the smallest subatomic levels. The field has helped scientists develop the standard model of particle physics, which details most of the inner workings of the universe -- with one notable exception. The standard model doesn't explain gravity.

So while quantum theory and relativity together explain most of the observable universe, they also contradict each other at times, such as in the study of black holes or the early universe. Not surprisingly, numerous scientists continue to work toward a unified theory.

Whatever theories we ultimately adopt, it's difficult to overstate the importance of gravity. It's the glue that holds the cosmos together, even if it still stirs up unanswered questions about the universe.
Click to expand...

http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/what-is-gravity.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=what is gravity&oq=what is gravity&aqs=chrome..69i57.1539j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

The long and short of it is - science isn't entirely sure what gravity is - theories range from a "curvature" in the fourth dimension of space (basically, think of it like a flat sheet, and the "gravity" around an object is that objects "mass" pushing down on the sheet and making a dip that other objects "fall" into) to the possibility of it being a particle/wave (gravitons), to the possibility of it being a combination of other forces in a way we don't know.

Simply put... it is a question we have not been able to answer satisfactorily.

Where you got this idea that gravity has anything to do with the energy of an object, I have no idea...
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Im confused, James told me in another thread that the question of the ''magic'' was more Philosophy than science.
Click to expand...
James R did write in the previous thread:
James R said:
Why does mass cause gravity? It just does. Not a good enough answer for the pseudoscientist! The pseudoscience wants to know about the "magic" of the mass-gravity connection, not realising that science isn't about answering this kind of question. That's more the domain of philosophy.
Click to expand...
He was calling your pursuit pseudoscience and generically adding that questions about "reality" beyond the description of observable behavior is a matter of meta-physics, which is philosophy distinct from physics. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see below), the meta-physics of a mechanism for gravity is not what most philosophers think of when presented with a bare topic of "meta-physics."
theorist-constant12345 said:
So I move to the appropriate section to ask about it and talk about the fundamentals , the definition of philosophy, and the post is moved?
Click to expand...
If you want to talk about the definition of philosophy then the philosophy forum was the right forum for that. But you didn't ask that question. You have violated the forum rules by opening up a second thread to advocate the same wrong idea.
Previous thread:
theorist-constant12345 said:
What mechanism makes gravity?
Click to expand...
This thread:
theorist-constant12345 said:
what do you think the mechanism is of gravity?
Click to expand...
What would be the starting point for such a conversation? You already admitted you could not handle the mathematical description of the behavior of gravity that was formed 350 years ago and certainly could not handle the modern description of General Relativity. When presented with reading material on General Relativity you demonstrated no evidence of reading and understanding the material. So if you don't even understand the behavior of gravity, what chance do you have to talk about purported meta-physical mechanisms since you lack the ability to judge if said mechanisms give rise to the observed behavior?

You also don't demonstrate any utility of the conversation. You offer no ideas or position. You propose people instruct you on the nature of philosophy when you have been the worst sort of student. You don't demonstrate that you have the background to make sense of these:

Thirdly, you don't demonstrate any seriousness to use well-formed English sentences to convey exactly what you are thinking and why you are thinking it. This poisons any attempt to discuss philosophy with you. Look at the level at which the above articles are written and compare them to your wasteful, hastifully written posts. If you don't care about your thoughts well enough to express them in precise English, why should we bother to care about them?
 
Kittamaru said:
Gravity falls under the category of "FM" - Fuckin Magic.

You are asking what, exactly? What "is" gravity?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/what-is-gravity.htm


http://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/what-is-gravity.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=what is gravity&oq=what is gravity&aqs=chrome..69i57.1539j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

The long and short of it is - science isn't entirely sure what gravity is - theories range from a "curvature" in the fourth dimension of space (basically, think of it like a flat sheet, and the "gravity" around an object is that objects "mass" pushing down on the sheet and making a dip that other objects "fall" into) to the possibility of it being a particle/wave (gravitons), to the possibility of it being a combination of other forces in a way we don't know.

Simply put... it is a question we have not been able to answer satisfactorily.

Where you got this idea that gravity has anything to do with the energy of an object, I have no idea...
Click to expand...
So if science does not have this answer, am I allowed to make presumptions on the matter?

Can I have a discussion without people saying it is wrong because there is no answer?



I got the idea from thinking about the situation and like any good psuedo scientist tries to be that situation.
 
rpenner said:
James R did write in the previous thread:
​
He was calling your pursuit pseudoscience and generically adding that questions about "reality" beyond the description of observable behavior is a matter of meta-physics, which is philosophy distinct from physics. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see below), the meta-physics of a mechanism for gravity is not what most philosophers think of when presented with a bare topic of "meta-physics."

If you want to talk about the definition of philosophy then the philosophy forum was the right forum for that. But you didn't ask that question. You have violated the forum rules by opening up a second thread to advocate the same wrong idea.
Previous thread:

This thread:

What would be the starting point for such a conversation? You already admitted you could not handle the mathematical description of the behavior of gravity that was formed 350 years ago and certainly could not handle the modern description of General Relativity. When presented with reading material on General Relativity you demonstrated no evidence of reading and understanding the material. So if you don't even understand the behavior of gravity, what chance do you have to talk about purported meta-physical mechanisms since you lack the ability to judge if said mechanisms give rise to the observed behavior?

You also don't demonstrate any utility of the conversation. You offer no ideas or position. You propose people instruct you on the nature of philosophy when you have been the worst sort of student. You don't demonstrate that you have the background to make sense of these:

Thirdly, you don't demonstrate any seriousness to use well-formed English sentences to convey exactly what you are thinking and why you are thinking it. This poisons any attempt to discuss philosophy with you. Look at the level at which the above articles are written and compare them to your wasteful, hastifully written posts. If you don't care about your thoughts well enough to express them in precise English, why should we bother to care about them?
Click to expand...
I care in what I say, but for some reason explaining is harder than the actual thought.


Thanks for the links I will read up on metaphysics.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Toying I am just stating the mods advice and not to post without evidence of I i will be banned and to avoid making my own maths up.
Click to expand...

TO be honest, even that in itself isn't ban-worthy - this issue was that you had several people giving you evidence as to why what you were posting was wrong, and you were choosing to ignore it - that is honest to God intellectual dishonesty
 
Kittamaru said:
TO be honest, even that in itself isn't ban-worthy - this issue was that you had several people giving you evidence as to why what you were posting was wrong, and you were choosing to ignore it - that is honest to God intellectual dishonesty
Click to expand...
Not choosing to ignore it, repeating myself that I already knew what they were posting , trying to tell them stop wasting their time posting what I knew already.

I have been told several 100 times some of the present information by various forums.
In my opinion there is several things I have not had evidence of by logical discussion to prove I was wrong on certain things.

Either way assumption time, I am thinking about an object on the floor, it contains an x amount of total energy. A total energy that is at loss to the larger mass of the earth.

I can not provide my maths that I would make up or try to derive a formula of the process.

On that note , there is not much more to the idea at this time I can add.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Not choosing to ignore it, repeating myself that I already knew what they were posting , trying to tell them stop wasting their time posting what I knew already.

I have been told several 100 times some of the present information by various forums.
In my opinion there is several things I have not had evidence of by logical discussion to prove I was wrong on certain things.

Either way assumption time, I am thinking about an object on the floor, it contains an x amount of total energy. A total energy that is at loss to the larger mass of the earth.

I can not provide my maths that I would make up or try to derive a formula of the process.

On that note , there is not much more to the idea at this time I can add.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here... it has energy... what kind of energy? How is it a loss to the earth?
 
Kittamaru said:
I'm not sure what you are saying here... it has energy... what kind of energy? How is it a loss to the earth?
Click to expand...
The object has nuclear energy/atomic energy, which ever one of the options defines the energy contained in an atom(s).

Where it is at a loss to the earth is the complex thought, I see the object as an equal of plus and an equal of negative when the object is not subjected to gravity if there is such a place the object could be.

I also think about air and imagine air on a set of pan scales, both pans having an equal mass of air on the scales showing zero on the needle.

We know if we add energy to either one of the air masses, the scales would alter, one mass becomes lighter by adding energy to the air.

We know the scales are hypothetically speaking, but maybe you can see my intent of explanation so far?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
The object has nuclear energy/atomic energy, which ever one of the options defines the energy contained in an atom(s).

Where it is at a loss to the earth is the complex thought, I see the object as an equal of plus and an equal of negative when the object is not subjected to gravity if there is such a place the object could be.

I also think about air and imagine air on a set of pan scales, both pans having an equal mass of air on the scales showing zero on the needle.

We know if we add energy to either one of the air masses, the scales would alter, one mass becomes lighter by adding energy to the air.

We know the scales are hypothetically speaking, but maybe you can see my intent of explanation so far?
Click to expand...
If you add energy to an air molecule such as N2 it would actually become more massive. It is almost like you do not know present knowledge. Imagine my surprise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top