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 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.

Enilzzub19 wrote:

Is There a Force of Gravity?





Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison
Wesley (2003)

"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law

F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2

o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.

o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.

o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.

o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is

F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)

where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.

These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.

Enilzzub19 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

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.

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://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
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

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
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!

In article , Uncle Al
writes:
Enilzzub19 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

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.

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p.
7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/jour...001-4will/inde
x.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374
(2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/jour...003-1ashby/ind
ex.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

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
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!

It's a good thing _that_ you said that mouthful before you choked on it(;^)

----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

Hello Enilzzub19 , You wrote ,
" Since [ London and Melbourne ] 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 . "

The city of Melbourne has a Net force of Zero ...
Does that mean that there are no component forces ? No .

The gravitational force is counterbalanced
by the force of the earth's structure .

In fact relativistic mass ,
which is a form of energy or " Heat " ,
is the flip side of gravity .
( Gravity might be the tendency for all energy
to return to the notional singularity of the big bang .
But entropy will probably always
prevent this from happening . )

Alt large scales , over 10 ^ 10 cm ,
the total relativistic mass
is observed to exactly equal
the total gravitational energy .

In the quote below , Hawking says that :
- Gravity is negative energy .
- All other energy ( including mass ) is positive .
- And the net energy of our universe is zero .

Hawking's quote is at " Generation Terrorists. COM "
http://www.GenerationTerrorists.COM/.../abhotswh.html

" There are something like ten million million
million million million million million million
million million million million million million
( 1 with eighty zeroes after it ) particles
in the region of the universe that we can observe .

Where did they all come from ?

The answer is that , in quantum theory ,
particles can be created out of energy
in the form of particle / antiparticle parts .

But that just raises the question of
where the energy came from .

The answer is that
the total energy of the universe is exactly zero .

The matter in the universe
is made out of positive energy .

However ,
the matter is all attracting itself by gravity .

Two pieces of matter that
are close to each other have less energy than
the same two pieces a long way apart ,
because you have to expend energy
to separate them against the gravitational
force that is pulling them together .

Thus in a sense ,
the gravitational field has negative energy .

In the case of a universe that is
approximately uniform in space ,
one can show that this negative gravitational energy
exactly cancels the positive energy
represented by the matter .

So the total energy of the universe is zero .

Now twice zero is also zero .

Thus the universe can
double the amount of positive matter energy
and also double the negative gravitational energy
without violation of the conservation of energy .
...
It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch .
But the universe is the ultimate free lunch . "

"Enilzzub19" wrote in message
...
Retiche,

I have, off and on for some years now pointed out to you where there is a
flaw in your maunderings.
You can look up the records in Google, so I won't waste time by giving the
details.
I will merely remind you that your ststement that your "ideas" lead to a
purely Euclidian space is internally inconsistent.
I did point out the inconsistency, so I will leave you to find it in more
than one past note to this newsgroup.

I don't believe for one minute that you will actually do that, and in
anticipation of the verification of my belief, I will reiterate here what I
have said many times in the past:

You are a miserable old fraud.

Franz Heymann

Obviously a response by an ignorant fool who is too lazy or too stupid to
understand the subject matter. Are you afraid you might learn something?

"Cigamtoob20" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Retiche,

I have, off and on for some years now pointed out to you where there is a
flaw in your maunderings.
You can look up the records in Google, so I won't waste time by giving the
details.
I will merely remind you that your statement that your "ideas" lead to a
purely Euclidian space is internally inconsistent.
I did point out the inconsistency, so I will leave you to find it in more
than one past note to this newsgroup.

I don't believe for one minute that you will actually do that, and in
anticipation of the verification of my belief, I will reiterate here what I
have said many times in the past:

You are a miserable old fraud.

Franz Heymann

There is stupidity involved here, but iit is not on my part, it is one th epart
of th lemmings who follow the current orthodoxy
without questioning its obvious contradictions. The material in the posting iis
unarguable and stands on its own two feet! Unfortunantely it disagrees with the
understanding of those who have been too lazy to investigate the subject
properly and are too self important to question their own brilliance.

Only fools would assert that the force we experience as gravity is not a
separate entity as is the force we expereience when our velocity changes.