Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

73fb31861da6eb00afdd9fbd14ca947f
0
424319a 101 Mar 22, 2004 at 08:58

Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

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.

21 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Mar 22, 2004 at 11:09

you are right. gravity is one of the greater mysteries of physics.

” 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.

Ae694d3c74ebfebda4db06cdb9db7730
0
Mihail1212 101 Mar 24, 2004 at 11:50

Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

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.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Mar 24, 2004 at 13:05

i didn’t claim to understand how and why gravity works :D just that it is what makes you fall. all these falling phenomena have been explored at length. kind of popular science as i like to call it

2b97deded6213469bcd87b65cce5d014
0
Mihail121 102 Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42

You’re right…. it’s quite hard to actually determine ‘what’ makes the gravity work. I’ve read many different stories on that matter but i don’t find any of them full. But for the time beeing it seems more important to just know what the effects from the gravity are….

979895261e6c52a6d2d5313d6a55cd79
0
zenogais 101 May 04, 2004 at 03:20

Gravity is the distortion in space time created by an objects mass. The force of gravity is directly proportional to amount of mass contained within a body. I assume by body you mean planet, in which case this is perfectly explained by physics. Lets take the moon for example, the moon is not pulled around the earth, it is instead in a continuous freefall towards the center of the earth. As for the statement on all objects in a vacuum falling at the same speed, this is due to a lack of friction, and is only applicable under the force of gravity. All bodies in motion do not fall at the same speed, the speed at which objects freefall depends on the force of gravity acting on those objects. In the case of a vacuum on the surface of the earth, their acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s\^2. But to keep this in perspective, everything that has mass has a certain level of gravitational pull as well, so any falling “body” will always have some force of gravity acting on it as long as it has mass.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 May 04, 2004 at 06:23

Gravity is the distortion in space time created by an objects mass

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).

979895261e6c52a6d2d5313d6a55cd79
0
zenogais 101 May 04, 2004 at 13:08

Well, there is not yet any viable proof that the graviton even exists, though its highly likely it does. As for the electrostatic force, its strength is 1 billion billion times greater than that of gravity. Gravity is the weakest force, and on top of that it is only an attracting force where as the electrostatic force both attracts and repels. Also the distortion of space-time by gravity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, this is a simply stated version of Einstein’s theory of gravity.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 May 04, 2004 at 15:36

i know… it is in fact part of what i was refering to above with “popular science” you will find the analogy of apples on sheet in every childrens book. also i meant to replace quantum mechanics with string theory also. anyway, this topic was started by a spamming moron who probably wanted to advertise his book so let’s drop this

E813ba6ba564e1f10bc2bc5c9b757561
0
farmerTom 101 May 30, 2004 at 00:47

If you are falling, you wouldn’t notice any gravity once you reach your max speed. So.

If the areodynamics were turned off in that space then gravity would not be a realitive expireance to a “falling body”.

7cd09c7a36ae970ed1efe28de8203ddd
0
reinder 101 Aug 31, 2004 at 06:39

the answer could be ‘not’, because a falling body is simply at rest in a (minkowsky) space-time inertialframe.

7b191af2e902ca29ca3d5a4481a8e58a
0
Acid 101 Aug 31, 2004 at 18:30

I disagree with the whole “Space-Time Continuum” theory… Einstein had all the figures right, but the evidence he provided would fit into more than one theory, as some scientists are beginning to find out. If he had lived long enough to see the proofs of his work, he would have revised that theory, and in my opinion changed it.

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…

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Aug 31, 2004 at 18:44

i like your idea and have no clue how well it fits, but it does sound quite nice and logical

7543b5c50738e23b200e69fe697ea85a
0
NomadRock 101 Aug 31, 2004 at 20:21

The equal and opposite force rule is about two bodies. An explosion is when each body pushes against each other body (or at least the nearby ones) The equal and opposite force is occures when you see that one body pushes against all those around it and all those bodies push back on the first. Equal and opposite means equal magnitude opposite direction, not opposite effect.

065f0635a4c94d685583c20132a4559d
0
Ed_Mack 101 Sep 01, 2004 at 04:49

Whats with these book quotes? Amazonbot!

7b191af2e902ca29ca3d5a4481a8e58a
0
Acid 101 Sep 01, 2004 at 17:45

@NomadRock

The equal and opposite force rule is about two bodies. An explosion is when each body pushes against each other body (or at least the nearby ones) The equal and opposite force is occures when you see that one body pushes against all those around it and all those bodies push back on the first. Equal and opposite means equal magnitude opposite direction, not opposite effect. [snapback]10100[/snapback]

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!!!…

…….

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

\~Acid

7543b5c50738e23b200e69fe697ea85a
0
NomadRock 101 Sep 02, 2004 at 02:23

Implosions origionate from a lack of pressure or a vacuum… An exlosion is not a force, it is a collection of forces in many directions…

I think you need to take a basic physics class.

7cd09c7a36ae970ed1efe28de8203ddd
0
reinder 101 Sep 02, 2004 at 13:13

Acid, good story, but you forget the fact that all matter “moving away” is uniformely distributed around us.

0b8c6698d4ab77272b72ff4f5a6aa298
0
Chris 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 16:09

> Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

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.

F7a4a748ecf664f189bb704a660b3573
0
anubis 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 16:23

and all that discussion sparked off by a stupid spam bot :)

40d3c1d8f291e5f90cc05985e00da115
0
Michael 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 16:40

@reinder

Acid, good story, but you forget the fact that all matter “moving away” is uniformely distributed around us. [snapback]10219[/snapback]

Someone had to mention that ;)

0b8c6698d4ab77272b72ff4f5a6aa298
0
Chris 101 Sep 16, 2004 at 17:22

Yeah, some initial posts over at flipcode could even have been auto-generated by some post-random-bs-bot :-)