Edarg
2009-09-14 15:56:18 UTC
"Is There a Force of Gravity?"
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
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
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). 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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
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.
2
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
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
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). 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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
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.
2
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.