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 http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
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.

Please make and/or back up any response with an 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.

For a response send E-Mail to

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE, COMPETENT, AND RELAVENT 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.

Gnitaerc06 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?



Fundamental Forces
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...talForces.html

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

Gravitation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Crank Information
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

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:21:56 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Gnitaerc06 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?



Fundamental Forces
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...talForces.html

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

Gravitation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Crank Information
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

The OP knows what he is talking about. He does not need your urls can you
not see that?

wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:21:56 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Gnitaerc06 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?



Fundamental Forces
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...talForces.html

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

Gravitation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Crank Information
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

The OP knows what he is talking about. He does not need your urls can you
not see that?

What made you think they were for the OP?

Gnitaerc06 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?
[snip]

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

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.

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

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
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass

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)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:06:17 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:21:56 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Gnitaerc06 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?



Fundamental Forces
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...talForces.html

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

Gravitation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html

Crank Information
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

The OP knows what he is talking about. He does not need your urls can
you not see that?

What made you think they were for the OP?



right! :-)