Is there gravity in the process of falling body?
Posted 22 March 2004 - 08:58 AM
The answer is not.
Galileo demonstrated that the acceleration of falling body is not concerned with mass, volume and chemical elements. This is Galileo phenomenon. Newton and Einstein attempted to use their theory, gravity law or general relativity to explain Galileo phenomenon, but it is not perfect.
All physics know that many phenomena can not clarified by Newton’s gravity law. For example, Newton’s law of gravity can only perfectly explain why tides occur on the side nearest to it, but not on the other side.
In fact, there is not necessary relation between the phenomenon of falling object and Newton’s law of gravity.
We need a new time-space theory.
Is it Pseudoscience and Metaphysics?
Reference: THING AND ITS LAW (ISBN 1-58939-525-5), chapter 2: timedistance and timecurvature (the active and passive motion of time-space) and chapter 5: natural force(the duality of time-space and energy)published by Virtualbookworm.com publishing Inc.
Posted 22 March 2004 - 11:09 AM
" Is there gravity in the process of falling body?
The answer is not."
the answer is yes. you fall because the mass of the earth atracts you. you can measure this pretty well. i think they did this once with a really giant oil ship. it was somehow shown that the giant mass these things have start to atract other ships by a very small margin. don't ask me how it was measured by it was.
Posted 24 March 2004 - 11:50 AM
It's more yes than know. But why?
There are a lot of things to consider really but some of them are:
in a room without any air all bodies (different sizes etc, blablabla) will fall with the _same_ acceleration. Try the experiment and see for yourself. And they fall exactly because of the gravity. Now if those objects are falling in a place with air they will fall with different speed and with different accelerations, which as we know depend on the gravity force on them and their mass. Of course many other things are involved in the falling process (as the air counterforce for exampe, which slows big bodies a little bit) but in general that's it.
Posted 24 March 2004 - 01:05 PM
Posted 26 March 2004 - 11:42 AM
Posted 04 May 2004 - 03:20 AM
Posted 04 May 2004 - 06:23 AM
quantum mechanics make things a bit more complicated but simply spoken, yes. still we don't have the faintes clue (string theory again provides some suggestions namely the graviton as a messenger particle for gravity) why bodys have this property. obviously gravity is the smallest of the elemental forces. this is easy to observe if you rub a ballon on a piece of cloth and hold it over a pice of paper (the gravity of the earth seems to be no math for even small electro static fields).
Posted 04 May 2004 - 01:08 PM
Posted 04 May 2004 - 03:36 PM
Posted 30 May 2004 - 12:47 AM
If the areodynamics were turned off in that space then gravity would not be a realitive expireance to a "falling body".
Posted 31 August 2004 - 06:39 AM
Posted 31 August 2004 - 06:30 PM
In my opinion, I think gravity is the opposite force of the explosion of the universe. The universe began as an explosion, is expanding, and is still accelerating in its expansion... if for every force there is an equal and opposite force, then this means there should be a force that resembles and implosion that encompases the entire universe with a force equal to that of the current acceleration of the universe. Mathematically speaking, this force would have to be nearly identical to the current accleration of the universe, for the speed of something can never naturally exceed the speed of light. For the acceleration to indefinitely increase, it would have to have reached such a small point after 14 billion years that (and yes, I've done the math before), according to my calculations would somewhere in the range (I expect it would be identical, but my mathematical skills are not yet of such caliber to achieve these equations) of the gravitational constant. This would explain how the force of gravity works, where it comes from, and keep Einstein's figures....
Of course... I'm a lazy C-Average student starting his first year of college, so if you want to have the traditional stereotypical view of "people like me" then just ignore what I said because I'm too familiar with critizism to care what you say... It's just my opinion...
Posted 31 August 2004 - 08:21 PM
Posted 01 September 2004 - 05:45 PM
No opposite effect of an explosion?!? Where do implosions originate, I wonder...
Daveperman, I wrote a big theory about this a long time back.. I don't exactly recall everything off the top of my head, but it dealt a lot with just logical application from what we know, equations that exist, and how to combine them into something that doesn't involve 21 dimensions, bubble-shaped universes, and strings that wrap around all of existence. All this "intellectual" science that I've read doesn't seem to apply common sense - the equations work, but the explanations are so (pardon my saying this) stupid! People seem to always defend a theory because an equation supports it, often blinded by the fact that having a theory that works into an equation doesn't mean that the theory is correct - then, once the theory has been accepted in science, it's stuck there for a while. Perhaps my criticism is unjustified, as I haven't devoted enough time to it, but consider our theory of model of the universe..
Scientsts: "I think there's no middle to the universe.. otherwise, why would all the other galaxies be moving away from us? We cant have been where the big bang orginated. As you can see by the red shifts from the light spectum we see that all other galaxies are moving away from us!" "No wait! I'm a genius!! Actually it would look like a bubble getting blown up! All the dots, which are galaxies, would expand outward! That makes perfect sense, even though you have to entirely ignore the inside of the universe, whatever THAT may be." ... to me they just seem like a bunch of guys with expensive-looking gadgets intent on explaining something with technical jibber jabber that makes unintellectuals go "oooooh" or scratch their head a lot... believe it or not, this is what many scientists have come to the conclusion of (at least the ones with enough prestigue to matter enough to get their "work" publicized).
This might seem a little too obvious.. but... what if the reason it looks as though it's moving away is because... we're moving faster than the ones moving toward us?
Now, I don't want to brush off all these fancy mumbo-jumbo explanations, what with their "indisputable" red-shifts and all that just so happen to be proportional in distance & speed... but it seems to me as though if the universe began with a giant explosion, that the shrapnel of this explosion (which eventually formed into galaxies) would all be moving at different rates. Anything expelled faster than our galaxy would be moving away (and hence look as though it were moving away), and anything expelled slower would *guess what* ALSO look as though it were moving away. What's more? They would be moving at speed proportional to their distances from each other - sound familiar? Now, theoretically the bubble-model (or whatever it's called) could work - yes, we could be on the outer edge of a 4th-dimensional sphere with 3rd-dimensional appearance, and the proportional system would still be effective... "theoretically".... logically, in my opinion, that's just not the case.
Oh yeah.. and time............ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!...
Posted 02 September 2004 - 02:23 AM
I think you need to take a basic physics class.
Posted 02 September 2004 - 01:13 PM
Posted 16 September 2004 - 04:09 PM
Yes, because otherwise it wouldn't accelerate, the speed of falling wouldn't increase. The fact that there's a maximum speed to be observed on earth is due to aerodynamics. In a perfect vacuum that would be light speed.
Maybe you had the correspondence of acceleration and gravity in mind, namely that without any environment one couldn't tell a gravity field apart from being accelerated.
Clearly, the answer isn't metaphysics - ridiculous, no matter on how many forums over the web you started that thread.
Posted 16 September 2004 - 04:23 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users