Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:57:45 +0000 (UTC), stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>I just wanted your explanation of how expansion explains
>the moon's orbit.

"Expansion could not explain it. The expansion
of matter (not space), would have to result in unit intervals
that constantly change (increase in length, meter sticks
made of matter expand, time slows, the temporal units
lengthen).


> Instead you start talking about vectors
>that you cannot even identify.

I dom't know what you want, vector values in
polar or rectangular coordinates?

> Can you answer the question or not?

No, and Newton can't explain how "gravitational
forces" cause the moon to fall one-eighth of an inch
every second.

>The search for "mechanisms" is a somewhat circular one
>that always seems to assume what it is trying to explain.
>Invariably people looking for mechanisms seem to want
>to explain everything in terms of collisions and
>"billiard balls". But what is the mechanism that
>explains collisions?

I don't see the answer as the big deal, science
understanding results from discussions of speculative
proposals.

> In the real world, we know
>that billiard balls bounce off of each other because
>of electromagnetic forces. So what is the point in
>explaining electomagnetic forces, or gravity even,
>in terms of billiard balls? Why do you not need to
>explain the mechanism for the "fundamental" collisions?

Because I want to. To my satisfction, I have,
and I am comfortable with the explanation.


>Why does gravity need a "mechanism"?

Perhaps If I would not have stumbled on the
popular books by Einstein in the early 1950's (with
some pages removed by the FBI 10 years earlier),
and the Dover paperback by Einstein, Minkowski,
Lorentz and Weyl, I might have stopped thinking
about the nonsensical expansion model.
But my interest really peaked when my
astronomy professor who worked in Africa in the
big worldwide gravimeter project told me that
"the density of the Earth increases faster than
the square of the radius at that level.
It became a challenge to explain how
the acceleration of gravity could be greater
a few hundred miles below the surface than
it is at the surface.

>Does Newton's
>straight line motion need a mechanism?
>Stephen

Yes, but it was simply Euclidean space,
which has no explanation.

The Divergent Matter model is clearly
possible with contact interactions, ONLY.
All other models seem to need hypothetical
particles, computer controlled ether medium, or
radiation "billiard balls" coming from all directions.

I know all gas molecules repulse each other,
so expansion would not require anything new or
unknown.

Newton, in creating the most useful and
least complicated mechanics for energy, motion
and gravitation, specified that gravitational mass
be identical to inertial mass, that is what the
formula actually says.
At least Einstein saw that this was just
too much of a coincidence, and devised a
principle that absolutely requires processes
that identify them not as equal or even identical,
but two words for the same attribute of matter.

Would you have asked Einstein why he
felt compelled to think about gravity?

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
    ... I wanted your explanation about how the expansion of the ... earth and moon explains the moon's orbit. ... > felt compelled to think about gravity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FTL, but what kind of?
    ... matter gravitation?) ... Of course, that's if you buy anything about string theory, which so far there's not a lot of compelling reason to do. ... The easier explanation is that the different branes are just as easily affected by gravity, so matter in nearby branes clump in corresponding batches together. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Locality vs Nonlocality: Raymond Y. Chiao vs PI
    ... I believe the original energy that made matter was spread ... There is an original expansion from a space-time singularity. ... But matter is yet to be created. ... apart and gravity is finite so expansion-inflation can take ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang time lapse, keeping the question short?
    ... Energy hurlesat the speed of light away from it. ... The expansion is faster than c. ... When exactly does matter slow down SUBSTANTIALY ... (Is it the energy changing form or is it gravity from matter that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
    ... >>1) It is the transparency of matter that gives rise to Newton's equation, ... > gravitational mass to be equal, and for Newton's third law to be true, ... >>> that gravity is proportional to mass rather than volume. ... >>LeSage assumed that corpuscles have their energy perfectly absorbed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)