Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree

On Jun 30, 1:06 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183184052.395051.85130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Jun 29, 12:41 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: >
: >news:1183138662.062407.48000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : On Jun 28, 9:20 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1183041604.793657.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley:
: > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter;
pray
: > : > : do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what
I do
: > : > : not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to consider
of
: > : > : it... Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should
(without
: > ye
: > : > : mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon &
affect
: > : > : other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in
the
: > : > : sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one
: > : > : reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me.
That
: > : > : gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt one
body
: > : > : may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the
: > : > : mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or
force
: > : > : may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity
: > : > : that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any
competent
: > : > : faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by
: > : > : an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether
this
: > : > : agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye
: > : > : consideration of my readers.
: > : > :
: > : > : John
: > : >
: > : > Had Newton studied electromagnetics he might have had different
: > : > views, although he cannot be blamed for requesting that gravity not
: > : > be laid at his door, he has openly stated he frames no hypotheses
and
: > : > honestly stated he doesn't know what gravity is. Nor do any of us.
: > : >
: > : > Whether Newton liked it or not, action-at-a-distance is an empirical
: > : > fact and we cannot measure the amount of matter (whatever that may
be)
: > : > without it. It seems to me that action-at-a-distance is no less
: > mysterious
: > : > than matter itself, for who can say what the flubber is that an
electron
: > : > or proton is made of? No known element, that's for sure, because the
: > : > elements are made of (supposedly) protons, neutrons and electrons
: > : > and it is action-at-a-distance (electrostatic) that is an essential
: > : > ingredient
: > : > of the Bohr atom.
: > : > Action-at-a-distance has three macroscopic forms, electrostatic,
: > magnetic
: > : > and gravitational, and we also have the weak and strong nuclear
forces,
: > : > but those are theoretical and based on our models, not on direct
: > : > observation.
: > : > I would propose that we accept action-at-a-distance as fact, however
: > absurd
: > : > it may seem to Newton, and inquire into how that produces inanimate
: > brute
: > : > matter.
: > : > The way to do so is of course a paradigm shift, and such shifts are
: > : > extremely
: > : > difficult to bring about, giving the inertia of human thought. We
: > "educate"
: > : > each other, but do not encourage individuals to think for
: > themselves.snip
: > :
: > :
: > : What Newton was saying is that matter can't be
: > : acting on its own. Like a kite doesn't fly without wind.
: > : Like a waterwheel doesn't turn without flow.
: >
: > Of course a waterwheel turns without flow.
: > Have you not heard of angular momentum?
: > A waterwheel turns unless something stops it.
: >
: > :
: > : Matter doesn't produce gravity actively.
: > : It produces it passively.
: >
: > Gravity produces matter actively. Without gravity there would be no
matter.
: >
: > : Put a huge rock in a river flowing at speed
: > : and a whirlpool forms behind it.
: > :
: > : Put the same rock in a river flowing twice as fast,
: > : aand a larger whirlpool forms behind it. Same rock,
: > : different whirlpools.
: > :
: > : Similarly, the gravity produced
: > : by matter is not dependent on the matter,
: > : but on the flow.
: >
: > In that case you should easily detect turbulence in the wake
: > of the planets, notably as their moons fly off or fall into the planet.
: > Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute rocks in rivers should (without
ye
: > mediation of whirlpool wch is not material ) operate upon & affect
: > other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the
: > sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it.
: > What are you proposing, turbulence in aether?
:
:
: An incoming energy flow from many sides
: at once of the same magnitude- read a density
: of space making itself known by having energy flow in all
: directions.
: One just then has only to identify
: the mediator of that flow and what fuels the flow.
:
: Presumably this flow is attenuated by matter.
:
: Candidate: (suggestion- previously undetected
: emanations from each and every electron as it accelerates around
: its nucleus- these rays travel at 30c and are ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-
: high-frequency)
:
: John

Oh, ok...
Like all crackpot charlatans you are babbling words you do not understand,
and now you want others to believe in "previously undetected emanations",
"incoming energy flow", "fuels the flow" and "density of space".
Why not use words like "ectoplasm", "celestial plane" and read the future
from your crystal ball to us so that we all understand we have to cross
your palm with silver to have our horoscopes read?

Gravity is a force, boy. It has units of newtons, but it isn't energy.
Energy is the ability to do work. Forces cannot do work. Ergo
gravity is not energy, an incoming flow of energy, a previously undetected
emanation or an ultra ^4-high-frequency.
Let me know when you want to discuss physics, I'm not interested
in palmistry.


Hmm. So a dam cannot do work?

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation
    ... we see as changes in motion due to what we call gravity. ... >It would violate the law of conservation of energy. ... matter expanding be a problem? ... rather than from principles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... understanding of science and the forces of nature comes, mainly, from ... caused us - laymen and scientists alike - to look at matter and energy ... Relativity, for instance, claims that light has gravity. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Newtons words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
    ... :>: Like a waterwheel doesn't turn without flow. ... :>: Matter doesn't produce gravity actively. ... of space making itself known by having energy flow in all ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is the Sun mostly dark matter ?
    ... As the matter moves in response to the ... energy is converted between the two. ... to accelerate outer stars faster'- or words to that effect. ... galaxies do not agree with our theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)