idontknowwhyijustknow on gravity

[Schneibster]

Matter follows the least energy geodesic.

 

Other matter warps the least energy geodesic's shape.

 

So does acceleration.

 

This, essentially, is General Relativity; I certainly don't mean to imply that's all there is to it, but it's the most important concepts of it, idontknow.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

good point sorry bout redirecting im new here thanx for all the replies very interesting thoughts

i know ive asked this before but can someone explain why we teach students to measure weight in kg's doesnt this cause half the confusion out there?

[Endy0816]

Do you mean weight or mass? Weight is a measurement of force, Mass is a quantity of matter.

 

Mass is more accurate and you can do more with it. Based on where you are your weight can change, but your mass will remain the same.

 

ie. F = (GMm)/r²

Edited April 9, 2014 by Endy0816

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

hows this

for me gravity is a force of attraction to the earth which presents itself in matter as weight(newtons) NOT!!!!!

n = m x g

the fact that the acceleration of mass due to the force is constant regardless of quantity of mass suggests two options to describe this phenomena

 

first......what we feel as weight on earth is due to the amount of matter multiplied by the acceleration of the mass(the same for all masses)

 

secondly.....the acceleration is equal in all masses due to equal force regardless of mass(this fits if we see matter not to exert force due to gravity but for matter to adopt the gravity force and become attracted to the earth that is matter never exerts force but it acted upon much like a magnet will polarize iron and then attract it the iron itself only feels this force in close proximity and the force of attraction of other iron to the attracted piece is only due to the force of the magnet and disapears when proximity to the magnet is reduced much as earths gravity loses its effect on matter as we reduce our proximity)

 

this might help explain why weight is approx 0 when at freefall both the earth and matter are making full use of the force of attraction so there is no opposition to force is this situation

 

and to explain weight at rest the attraction of earth and matter can no longer become closer(matter can no longer fall to the centre of earth) so at this stage there is full opposition to the force in respect to the magnitude of attraction between the body's

 

weight is in essence the lorentz force

amperes early deffinitions of the this force were all desciptions of the properties of an object and the distances between them rather than in terms of electricity and magnetism

 

doesn't that fact that the law of gravity and the lorentz force are both inverse square laws hint towards magnetism

 

the fact both gravity(centripetal) and magnetism are attractive forces while centrifugal and electrical forces are repulsive aids this view

[swansont]

 

doesn't that fact that the law of gravity and the lorentz force are both inverse square laws hint towards magnetism

 

the fact both gravity(centripetal) and magnetism are attractive forces while centrifugal and electrical forces are repulsive aids this view

 

Magnetism of a single particle isn't observed as a monopole, though, so it's not inverse square. As a dipole it's inverse cube.

 

From a purely scientific standpoint, that should end the discussion — the data don't fit with the prediction. You should be overjoyed at this news, because you are "always happy to admit im (sic) wrong", so you're welcome.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

thanx for you comment as its obvious i have no idea lol

 

however i have learnt alot in the last 24 hrs and had the hole history of gravity explained to me

 

i understand newton came up with the idea of fixed space and einstein came up with space time theory with allows for gravity as a result of the curvature of space time

 

i would like to point out the fact the einstein himself was not satisfied with this theory and died believing he still misunderstood it i think its fair to say that everyone is still quessing nowawdays and have a set of views based on what we think(do) know about that around us to pick the best theory

 

i think the word theory is most important !!!

ok new question for anyone What or where is the force acting on bodies in orbit that allow them to maintain orbital direction and speed because i cant see how this curvature can work without an external force if you try and model it u simply cant without another energy

 

In particular it is suggested that the spin caused by larger bodies is what allows for the orbital speed but why hasnt anyone been able to build a model of this also this model doesnt really allow for electricity/magnetism force as we know these can move space

 

ok i have seen a model using magnestism which does appear to work as the force of gravity and electricity as the cause for spin and the lorentz force is a inverse square law as for the monopole idea from above thats nonsence i didnt suggest monopoles existed

a sphere that is charged via magnet can become charged positive on the outside and negative internally this isnt a monopole can can perfom actions a monopole is thought too only exhibit?

[swansont]

 

ok i have seen a model using magnestism which does appear to work as the force of gravity and electricity as the cause for spin and the lorentz force is a inverse square law as for the monopole idea from above thats nonsence i didnt suggest monopoles existed

a sphere that is charged via magnet can become charged positive on the outside and negative internally this isnt a monopole can can perfom actions a monopole is thought too only exhibit?

 

Where is this model of which you speak?

[Endercreeper01]

Kilograms is not force. Pounds is force, but kilograms are not.

If gravity was like magnetism, we would feel a repulsion from negative mass, but we don't.

Negative mass does not exist, but if it did, negative mass would repel positive mass and attract negative. If gravity was like electromagnetism, we would see negative and positive mass attract.

What or where is the force acting on bodies in orbit that allow them to maintain orbital direction and speed because i cant see how this curvature can work without an external force if you try and model it u simply cant without another energy

 

The centripetal force acts on bodies moving in a circular path. When a planet is orbiting a star, the centripetal and gravitational forces are equal, i.e

[latex]\frac{v^2}{r}=-\frac{-GM}{r^2}[/latex]

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

can anyone help with this

as i understand it the earth orbits the suns equator and the moon orbits the earths equator (this is approx not taking in recession )

now this im not sure of but doesnt the sun orbit one of the pleidian stars or if not what does the sun orbit anything

 

a better question might be what motion and reason does the sun follow assuming it moves

 

and my real question if the sun moves through space while the earth is orbiting then am i right in assuming the earths motion is actually helical in nature if this is so wouldnt the centripetal force explain gravity thouroughly by it self

 

this would of course be assuming space is a uniform magnetic field and objects like planets and maybe suns are charged particles i know far fetched probably help me?lol

[swansont]

can anyone help with this

as i understand it the earth orbits the suns equator and the moon orbits the earths equator (this is approx not taking in recession )

now this im not sure of but doesnt the sun orbit one of the pleidian stars or if not what does the sun orbit anything

 

a better question might be what motion and reason does the sun follow assuming it moves

 

and my real question if the sun moves through space while the earth is orbiting then am i right in assuming the earths motion is actually helical in nature if this is so wouldnt the centripetal force explain gravity thouroughly by it self

 

The trajectory of the earth and/or sun is a matter of what frame of reference you are describing it from. The sun orbits the galactic core, and probably has other motions associated with it when viewed by an external frame at rest with respect to the core, because of the various gravitational influences present.

 

 

this would of course be assuming space is a uniform magnetic field and objects like planets and maybe suns are charged particles i know far fetched probably help me?lol

Whether or not space is a uniform magnetic field is a question that can be experimentally determined. Simply asserting that it is is not sufficient. Belief doesn't matter. What is the experimental evidence that it is? (Hint: there is none)

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

no proof im not a genius man as i stated help me im crazy lol

 

im really just asking on other opinions as i have a real prob with spacetime theory and gravity as explained by academics

 

my gut feeling is that magnetism and electricity can account for all forces and motions if we understood them fully it seems like science is just invented more and more differnt names for forces and matter that are all relative to one thing ? ps didnt einstein himself say general relativity was either wrong or incomplete any thoughts

where is the galactic core how do we know the sun orbits it

 

if the big bang is expanding space an a 3 dimensional form from a point outwards how can there be a galactic core apart from the point of the big bang ?

skip the last question i get what you mean by galatic core i was thinking of space core duh

 

am i write in assuming earths motion is helical though

[Delta1212]

no proof im not a genius man as i stated help me im crazy lol

 

im really just asking on other opinions as i have a real prob with spacetime theory and gravity as explained by academics

 

my gut feeling is that magnetism and electricity can account for all forces and motions if we understood them fully it seems like science is just invented more and more differnt names for forces and matter that are all relative to one thing ? ps didnt einstein himself say general relativity was either wrong or incomplete any thoughts

We know that General Relativity is wrong/incomplete because it conflicts with QM. They're two of the most well tested and accurate theories in science, but they cannot both be correct as currently formulated.

 

There are, however, degrees of wrongness. The idea that gravity is a result of magnetism is more wrong than General Relativity because it doesn't provide accurate results for areas that General Relativity does. In fact, gravity really doesn't behave like magnetism at all except on a very, very superficial level and barely even then.

 

This is very important to remember: gravitational theory and magnetic theory are not "Hey, gravity is what pulls us down" and "Hey, magnetism is what causes magnets to work." The theories are precise mathematical description of how things behave.

 

So for instance, if you gave me some information about two objects (charge, mass, distance, etc) I could tell you exactly how they will interact with each other due to magnetism. I could, for instance, tell you exactly how far apart to place two magnets before the attraction overpowers friction and inertia and they "leap" together. And if you placed them at that distance you would find the math predicted that distance accurately.

 

I could do the same for gravity and tell you, for instance, how fast you would need to go to orbit the Earth at a given distance from the surface. You could go up and move at that speed and see that the prediction was correct.

 

If, however, you attempted to apply the math for gravitational interactions to an electromagnetic interaction, or vice versa, you would get a completely different result, one that is wrong. The same descriptions do not apply to both phenomena, which means they are not simply the same thing.

 

Science would love to unify the forces, but you can't just say "Gravity is caused by magnetism." You have to be able to provide a description of how these very different behaviors are derived from a common source, and no one has been able to do that.

[swansont]

no proof im not a genius man as i stated help me im crazy lol

 

im really just asking on other opinions as i have a real prob with spacetime theory and gravity as explained by academics

 

my gut feeling is that magnetism and electricity can account for all forces and motions if we understood them fully it seems like science is just invented more and more differnt names for forces and matter that are all relative to one thing ? ps didnt einstein himself say general relativity was either wrong or incomplete any thoughts

 

where is the galactic core how do we know the sun orbits it

 

if the big bang is expanding space an a 3 dimensional form from a point outwards how can there be a galactic core apart from the point of the big bang ?

 

skip the last question i get what you mean by galatic core i was thinking of space core duh

 

am i write in assuming earths motion is helical though

Well, this is a science site, so asking for opinions (actual opinions, rather than what we call professional opinions) is a nonstarter. These are factual matters. Opinions don't matter. Behaviors of nature occur (or not) on their own, not because you think they do or want them to. Nature cares not a whit for your gut feelings.

 

While science is incomplete, we do have a pretty good grasp on the forces of nature, especially on a general sense. That gravity is distinct from magnetism in the realm of circumstances in which we observe them has been a settled question for more than a century.

[Phi for All]

Nature cares not a whit for your gut feelings.

 

"Gut feelings" are just a desire for intuitive explanations, imo. We often want reality to be in lockstep with the way we feel about it, and that's totally backwards.

 

If I put my emotions first, there's no way a bullet fired from a gun hits the ground at the same time I drop a bullet from the same height. It's not intuitive, and until I remove all the flash and bang and feelings about guns and other emotional variables, it's hard to focus on just the gravity of the situation.

[Delta1212]

 

"Gut feelings" are just a desire for intuitive explanations, imo. We often want reality to be in lockstep with the way we feel about it, and that's totally backwards.

 

If I put my emotions first, there's no way a bullet fired from a gun hits the ground at the same time I drop a bullet from the same height. It's not intuitive, and until I remove all the flash and bang and feelings about guns and other emotional variables, it's hard to focus on just the gravity of the situation.

It's interesting. I know that the bullet drop thing felt counter-intuitive when I first heard it, but it took me a moment to remember why. It now feels counter-intuitive that it wouldn't hit at the same time because the way I conceptualize bullet trajectories has changed from what it was some years ago.

 

Intuition is just applying past experience to current circumstance without putting in a lot of thought. That works great for getting approximately correct answers to many questions without having to spend a lot of time mulling it over but tends to break horribly when applied to areas you don't have any past experience with.

[Schneibster]

It is necessary to develop new intuitions, and the knowledge of when to use them.

 

The real world is considerably different than what we think we see. Newton realized that in the seventeenth century.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Schneibster

[Strange]

i would love to here other opinions always happy to admit im wrong

 

 

magnestism is an attractive force only

 

This is trivially falsified by anyone with a pair of magnets. Feel free to admit you are wrong.