Re: Gravity's equal and non equal acceleration


Peter M. Brown wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130126474.744214.88160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Peter M. Brown wrote:
> > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1130122841.240840.122190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Androcles wrote:
> > > > > "Rod Ryker" <rryker@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b0e59$435bf1e2$d8442a3b$496@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > |
> > > > > |
> > > > > |
> > > > > | "MP" <pet.antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:435b5b27$0$4526$9b622d9e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > | > Rod Ryker wrote:
> > > > > | > > Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
> > > > > | > > I have been rehashing old arguments.
> > > > > | > > So, Billy, this ones for you. :)
> > > > > | > >
> > > > > | > > Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
> > > > > | > > accelerate at the same rate.
> > > > > | > > However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
> > > > > | > > at different rates, IOW's weight.
> > > > > | > > Why the contradiction?
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | > The apparent contradiction is resolved
> > > > > | > in General Relativity.
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | > According to General Relativity the
> > > > > | > cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
> > > > > | > they are in free fall. They *do*
> > > > > | > accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
> > > > > | > when they "rest" at the surface of
> > > > > | > the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
> > > > > | > push against the natural motion that
> > > > > | > the cannonballs would have, if there
> > > > > | > were no matter at the earth's surface
> > > > > | > prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
> > > > > | > e.g. free fall]
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | > According to Newton's theory of gravity
> > > > > | > the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
> > > > > | > to absolute space), *when* they are in free
> > > > > | > fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
> > > > > | > to absolute space), when they rest on the
> > > > > | > surface of the earth.
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | > You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
> > > > > | > of general relativy. Therefore the
> > > > > | > apparent contradiction.
> > > > > | >
> > > > > | > MP
> > > > > |
> > > > > | Rod: Thank you for your comments. :)
> > > > > | Any one else.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is amusing:
> > > > > [The electromagnetic forces
> > > > > push against the natural motion that
> > > > > the cannonballs would have, if there
> > > > > were no matter at the earth's surface
> > > > > prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
> > > > > e.g. free fall]
> > > > > He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
> > > > That is because he hasn't leared to use the
> > > > 'E-switch' used to turn the Coulomb force
> > > > on and off between paragraphs.
> > >
> > > May I ask who "he" is? If its me then I don't understand your comment.
> >
> > I belive it is poster 'MP' who forgot that it is the
> > Coulomb force which keeps an expired projectile
> > off of the ground.
>
> If you want to refer to my bottom in contact with my chair as a Coulomb
> force then some people will find it hard to understand. Call it an "external
> force" and it'll be clearer. In fact all of the relativity textbooks that I
> know of describe it in these terms. In this case its the 4-force of the
> chair on my bottom that is pushing me off of a geodesic.

I doubt Emmy Noether leaves you 4,5,6 or any other force
after you've dorked with time and space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem


>
> > Can you clarify as to what this Coulomb force is?
> > It is what causes a charged comb to attract a pith
> > ball.
>
> I understand what a Coulomb force is. I wanted to know what specific charges
> were you refering to which were exerting the Coulomb force.

Do I refer to them by name or govennment account number?
:o)

>
> >
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/electrostatics/index.h
> tm
>
> Ouch!! Man that hurts! I had a job interview at MIT in the department that
> created those pictures. During my walk to and from the interview I herniated
> a disk in my back. My life has been an absolute hell since then. I had that
> darn disk removed last month. Now I'm fighting a staph infection! Yipes! :)

You aren't suppose to look at those in four-space or
your neck will wind up like rope strands. :o)
>
> > The only thing I responded to
> > > was to say that the gravitational force and inertial forces are of the
> same
> > > nature, i.e. that each is a function of mass and thus the spatial path
> the
> > > particle travels under such force is independant of the particle's mass.
> >
> > That looks consistant to me.
> > Force is function of (Mm)
> > Force is function of (Cc)
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > Ya'elcome :o)
> >
> > Sue...
>
> Thanks again Sue

Sure...
When you succeed in elevating yourself by
pulling on your bootstraps, we can discucss
how to model a force in a paradigm that is
defined to have no forces.


Sue...


>
> Pete

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Coulomb derived gravity
    ... Sue... ... > Removing Distortions from Charge Balance Functions, ... the EXACT opposite magnitude of Coulomb force, ... gravitation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... >> Sue... ... >>> Because the molecules in the accelerometer are subject ... > It is as real as Coulomb, Van der Waals, magnetism, ... If you take gravity, inertia and Coreolis ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... >> It is as real as Coulomb, Van der Waals, magnetism, ... >> mechanism to store the energy of acceleration. ... > Sue, what is the general criteria you use to decide when a 'force' is ... It seems clear that you do not insist that acceleration is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)