Is There a Force of Gravity?

In undergraduate physics, the Newtonian concept of an attractive force
between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses divided by
the square of their separation is taught. When one advances to the more
advanced concepts of gravitational theory as posed by General Relativity,
the concept seems to change to where what we experience as a force is really
the result of an inertial acceleration in "space-time".

It behooves us then to examine that concept in detail. Consider two
points on the Earth, perhaps London, England and Melbourne, Australia. In
both of these cities, observers experience a downward "pull " towards the
Earth's center. (We can ignore the centrifugal acceleration caused by
Earth's rotation since, at the most, it represents only 0.3% of the Earth's
gravitational acceleration and consider the Earth to be a closed system for
the purposes of the discussion, all velocities and accelerations are
relative to the center of the Earth and, since both London and Melbourne are
nominally at the same elevation which does not change, considerations of
time dilation in the gravitational field are irrelevant. These
clarifications are required because a pair of individuals whose thinking
processes were limited attempted clouds the discussion by introducing them
in response to a previous posting.) Inertial acceleration is defined as the
second derivative of position with respect to time, and since London and
Melbourne are within the closed reference frame represented by the Earth
they do not change their separation with respect to each other but they do
experience the force of gravity as acting in essentially opposite
directions. Since are observed not to undergo spatial acceleration with
respect to each other and the center of the Earth, that observed force of
gravity CANNOT result from an inertial acceleration. It can only result from
an actual force attracting those cities towards the Earth's center in
accordance with the classical Newtonian concept of gravity. It cannot result
from a spatial acceleration in "space-time" as is asserted by specious
interpretations of both Special and General Relativity. The force is REAL.
It is much more than a mathematical abstraction!

In response to a previous posting of this material, the writer received
an E-Mail claiming that the writer was in error. It asserted that Melbourne
and London were really in a "flattened" orbits around the center of the
Earth and experienced the "force" if gravity because they were restrained
from following their null geodesic orbits by the Earth's surface. What
appeared to be the "force" of gravity resulted from that restraint because
it prevented these two cities from following their null geodesic path? This
is a rather frivolous response. If the cities were to fall through the
Earth, the inertial force produced by the resulting second derivative of
position with respect to time and the gravitational force would cancel and
the cities would experience no net force. The attractive force that they
actually experience verifies that gravitational force and inertial
acceleration are different phenomena describing TWO effects, gravitational
attraction and inertial acceleration. There is no way of avoiding the
conclusion that the former applies a force as the result of the proximity of
masses and inertial acceleration applies a force as a result of the second
derivative of position with respect to time. It is only in the never-never
world which mathematics allows one to be foolish enough to consider that
they were different aspects of the same phenomena.

As a digression, the interchange of electric and magnetic energy in a
resonant circuit is conventionally treated as a single phenomena and treated
by a single set of mathematics, as is the interchange of potential energy
and kinetic energy when an object is in orbit. In actuality, in the resonant
circuit, the energy is alternately stored in a capacitor as an electric
stress in its dielectric and is stored in the inductor in its magnetic lines
of force. The actions of both of these devices are independently described
by their own mathematical laws. It is only when they are connected together
do their laws combine to provide an action we experience as resonance in
which energy is cyclicly interchanged between the two devices. I can hold a
charged capacitor in one hand and an inductor in the other hand. It is only
when they are connected together that resonance occurs. The same conculsion
holds true for gravitation. Gravitation forces and acceleration forces are
independent effects which, when coupled, account for orbits as if a single
process were involved. The orbital motion results from the cyclical
interchange of energy between the two independent effects.

Mathematics is a useful tool, but it seems to have been forgotten that
it is only a tool, it should never be used as a substitute for the
intelligence needed to understand of the "mechanism(s)" involved. Physics
seems to be the only science that attempts to abolish "mechanism" and rely
solely on mathematics and experiment. This probably results from the fact
that understanding the "mechanisms" which are involved requires an innate
talent that probably cannot be taught in schools and is as rare as the
musical aptitude which allows an individual to play a violin in Carnegie
Hall. It is no wonder that physicists work so hard to relegate the idea of
"mechanism" to the trash bin of history. It avoids the embarrassment of
admitting that they do not understand their subject.

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All Newsposts by this Website are available at


Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

Enilno wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?
[snip 100 lines of ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Enilno wrote:
Is There a Force of Gravity?



Background;
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html

The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Planetary Motion
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kepler.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Equations.html


Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...VITYMECHA NIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...ITYMECHA NIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

In sci.physics, Enilno

wrote
on Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:30:37 -0500
:
Is There a Force of Gravity?

The ridiculously terse answer: No. It just feels like one. :-)


In undergraduate physics, the Newtonian concept of an attractive force
between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses divided by
the square of their separation is taught. When one advances to the more
advanced concepts of gravitational theory as posed by General Relativity,
the concept seems to change to where what we experience as a force is really
the result of an inertial acceleration in "space-time".

I'm not sure of the concept of "inertial acceleration", admittedly.
The best I can do with it is that an object, when traveling through
a warped space, travels through it in such a fashion as to have
constant energy. Or, perhaps, one has to consider the entire
*system* (usually, a planet and a satellite, either natural
or artificial, orbiting it); that system will have both constant
energy and constant momentum, if all other gravitational influences
are ignored/eliminated/moved away. Of course, a satellite of 10 kg
might move 8 km in the space of a second, and a planet of, oh,
say, 5.976 * 10^24 kg, might move a tiny fraction of the average
size of a proton in the same time interval.

The satellite also warps space, of course -- though the warpage
thereof is ridiculously tiny compared to the planet's.


It behooves us then to examine that concept in detail. Consider two
points on the Earth, perhaps London, England and Melbourne, Australia. In
both of these cities, observers experience a downward "pull " towards the
Earth's center. (We can ignore the centrifugal acceleration caused by
Earth's rotation since, at the most, it represents only 0.3% of the Earth's
gravitational acceleration and consider the Earth to be a closed system for
the purposes of the discussion, all velocities and accelerations are
relative to the center of the Earth and, since both London and Melbourne are
nominally at the same elevation which does not change, considerations of
time dilation in the gravitational field are irrelevant. These
clarifications are required because a pair of individuals whose thinking
processes were limited attempted clouds the discussion by introducing them
in response to a previous posting.) Inertial acceleration is defined as the
second derivative of position with respect to time, and since London and
Melbourne are within the closed reference frame represented by the Earth
they do not change their separation with respect to each other but they do
experience the force of gravity as acting in essentially opposite
directions. Since are observed not to undergo spatial acceleration with
respect to each other and the center of the Earth, that observed force of
gravity CANNOT result from an inertial acceleration. It can only result from
an actual force attracting those cities towards the Earth's center in
accordance with the classical Newtonian concept of gravity. It cannot result
from a spatial acceleration in "space-time" as is asserted by specious
interpretations of both Special and General Relativity. The force is REAL.
It is much more than a mathematical abstraction!

Energy consists of at least two parts: potential energy and kinetic
energy. If, say, a space rock were to target the Earth (assuming
space rocks have any brains to do so, of course :-) ), the
energy of that space rock will be constant but the potential
energy (which is negative, by convention; 0 = infinitely far
away in a strain-free inertial reference frame, motionless
relative to the measuring-device) will decrease, requiring an
increase in the kinetic. It's the kinetic component that does
the most damage when the rock finally falls on one's foot -- or
one's head, if one be so unlucky.

It turns out that photons exhibit a similar behavior, with two
differences:

[1] They don't change speed.
[2] The manifestation of the "extra" energy is an increase in
frequency, rather than an increase in speed.

If one has a rocket with insufficient energy, it will fall back to
Earth. With sufficient energy, it will fall around the Earth (orbit)
or might even escape (potential + kinetic 0).

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Newton made big mistake. There is no force of gravity.

"Enilno" wrote in message
...
Is There a Force of Gravity?

In undergraduate physics, the Newtonian concept of an attractive
force
between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses divided
by
the square of their separation is taught. When one advances to the more
advanced concepts of gravitational theory as posed by General Relativity,
the concept seems to change to where what we experience as a force is
really
the result of an inertial acceleration in "space-time".

It behooves us then to examine that concept in detail. Consider two
points on the Earth, perhaps London, England and Melbourne, Australia. In
both of these cities, observers experience a downward "pull " towards the
Earth's center. (We can ignore the centrifugal acceleration caused by
Earth's rotation since, at the most, it represents only 0.3% of the
Earth's
gravitational acceleration and consider the Earth to be a closed system
for
the purposes of the discussion, all velocities and accelerations are
relative to the center of the Earth and, since both London and Melbourne
are
nominally at the same elevation which does not change, considerations of
time dilation in the gravitational field are irrelevant. These
clarifications are required because a pair of individuals whose thinking
processes were limited attempted clouds the discussion by introducing them
in response to a previous posting.) Inertial acceleration is defined as
the
second derivative of position with respect to time, and since London and
Melbourne are within the closed reference frame represented by the Earth
they do not change their separation with respect to each other but they do
experience the force of gravity as acting in essentially opposite
directions. Since are observed not to undergo spatial acceleration with
respect to each other and the center of the Earth, that observed force of
gravity CANNOT result from an inertial acceleration. It can only result
from
an actual force attracting those cities towards the Earth's center in
accordance with the classical Newtonian concept of gravity. It cannot
result
from a spatial acceleration in "space-time" as is asserted by specious
interpretations of both Special and General Relativity. The force is REAL.
It is much more than a mathematical abstraction!

In response to a previous posting of this material, the writer
received
an E-Mail claiming that the writer was in error. It asserted that
Melbourne
and London were really in a "flattened" orbits around the center of the
Earth and experienced the "force" if gravity because they were restrained
from following their null geodesic orbits by the Earth's surface. What
appeared to be the "force" of gravity resulted from that restraint because
it prevented these two cities from following their null geodesic path?
This
is a rather frivolous response. If the cities were to fall through the
Earth, the inertial force produced by the resulting second derivative of
position with respect to time and the gravitational force would cancel and
the cities would experience no net force. The attractive force that they
actually experience verifies that gravitational force and inertial
acceleration are different phenomena describing TWO effects, gravitational
attraction and inertial acceleration. There is no way of avoiding the
conclusion that the former applies a force as the result of the proximity
of
masses and inertial acceleration applies a force as a result of the second
derivative of position with respect to time. It is only in the never-never
world which mathematics allows one to be foolish enough to consider that
they were different aspects of the same phenomena.

As a digression, the interchange of electric and magnetic energy in a
resonant circuit is conventionally treated as a single phenomena and
treated
by a single set of mathematics, as is the interchange of potential energy
and kinetic energy when an object is in orbit. In actuality, in the
resonant
circuit, the energy is alternately stored in a capacitor as an electric
stress in its dielectric and is stored in the inductor in its magnetic
lines
of force. The actions of both of these devices are independently described
by their own mathematical laws. It is only when they are connected
together
do their laws combine to provide an action we experience as resonance in
which energy is cyclicly interchanged between the two devices. I can hold
a
charged capacitor in one hand and an inductor in the other hand. It is
only
when they are connected together that resonance occurs. The same
conculsion
holds true for gravitation. Gravitation forces and acceleration forces are
independent effects which, when coupled, account for orbits as if a single
process were involved. The orbital motion results from the cyclical
interchange of energy between the two independent effects.

Mathematics is a useful tool, but it seems to have been forgotten
that
it is only a tool, it should never be used as a substitute for the
intelligence needed to understand of the "mechanism(s)" involved. Physics
seems to be the only science that attempts to abolish "mechanism" and rely
solely on mathematics and experiment. This probably results from the fact
that understanding the "mechanisms" which are involved requires an innate
talent that probably cannot be taught in schools and is as rare as the
musical aptitude which allows an individual to play a violin in Carnegie
Hall. It is no wonder that physicists work so hard to relegate the idea of
"mechanism" to the trash bin of history. It avoids the embarrassment of
admitting that they do not understand their subject.

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET
THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All Newsposts by this Website are available at


Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

Uno wrote:
Newton made big mistake. There is no force of gravity.


Please demonstrate from a tall building.

Hi Sam Seems Einstien took force from gravity. Seems kind of far out
that a curve gives the effect of gravity. There was a ride(i loved ) on
Revere Beach that spun and when up to a set speed you were stuck to its
walls. Maybe gravity is created because nothing moves in a straight
line? Space itself might spin(loved that amusement ride) I do have a
theory that space is concave(locally) and convex (at great distance)
Convex space gives the universe its observed accelerating inflation.
Space is indeed more interesting than all that is immerged in it.
Bert PS Best to keep in mind that inertia and gravity are two sides to
the same coin,and curved motion is gravity

Sam Wormley wrote in message news:9ezTd.53705$tl3.43878@attbi_s02...
Uno wrote:
Newton made big mistake. There is no force of gravity.


Please demonstrate from a tall building.

Uno is right. There is no force of gravity. Therre is only a lever.
What Newton experienced as gravity is only twisted interpretation of
Archimedes' lever. The falling body in the very first instance of the
free fall doesn't suffer force but only has extreme distance (arm)
from its equilibrium point. Because the falling body is notorious
consumer it will begin to spend every thing it got - in this case its
distance. However, since its imbalance is preserved it will gain force
just as it spends its distance. At the impact point - the equilibium
point the body will have extreme force which it will try to annihilate
with the none- symmetric frontal compression from the impact.

In few words: "Newton got levers all up-side-down".

gravity is the force of attraction between particles and matter waves


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Sam Seems Einstien took force from gravity. Seems kind of far out
that a curve gives the effect of gravity. There was a ride(i loved ) on
Revere Beach that spun and when up to a set speed you were stuck to its
walls. Maybe gravity is created because nothing moves in a straight
line? Space itself might spin(loved that amusement ride) I do have a
theory that space is concave(locally) and convex (at great distance)
Convex space gives the universe its observed accelerating inflation.
Space is indeed more interesting than all that is immerged in it.
Bert PS Best to keep in mind that inertia and gravity are two sides to
the same coin,and curved motion is gravity

Ron Poteet wrote:
gravity is the force of attraction between particles and matter waves

Gravity is geometry.


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...

Hi Sam Seems Einstien took force from gravity. Seems kind of far out
that a curve gives the effect of gravity. There was a ride(i loved ) on
Revere Beach that spun and when up to a set speed you were stuck to its
walls. Maybe gravity is created because nothing moves in a straight
line? Space itself might spin(loved that amusement ride) I do have a
theory that space is concave(locally) and convex (at great distance)
Convex space gives the universe its observed accelerating inflation.
Space is indeed more interesting than all that is immerged in it.
Bert PS Best to keep in mind that inertia and gravity are two sides to
the same coin,and curved motion is gravity