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.

Hi

The problem is that nobody actually understands the nature of force. What
exactly is force? What exactly is inertia? To describe graviatational force
in terms of inertial acceleration (in my opinion) is ok. If the theory
works and can be used to make predictions accurately, then it is a good
theory. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we actually understand what is
going on in terms of the underlying mechanisms. We obviously don't
understand which is why so many people are still looking.

We do know that in the absence of any external forces a gravitational field
induces inertial acceleration in objects. The force experienced by an
object resting on the surface of the earth is the force exhurted by the
earth on the object to prevent it's continued inertial acceleration. We
also know that if a force is applied to an object, in the absence of a
gravitational field, then the object will undergo inertial acceleration
equivalent to that produced by a gravitational field.

To me the question is what is the nature of force? I believe that there is
a single underlying cause of force, for which I have a possible explanation/

Cheers

Alun



"Elpoep19" 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
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.

"Alun Williams" wrote in message ...
Hi

The problem is that nobody actually understands the nature of force.

Arogance in the extreme. You don't understand something so you assert
that no one understands it.

Paul Cardinale

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
"Alun Williams" wrote in message
...
Hi

The problem is that nobody actually understands the nature of force.

Arogance in the extreme. You don't understand something so you assert
that no one understands it.

Paul Cardinale




Paul,

When I read your response, I thought I had miss posted my note in the
Psycho-analysis newsgroup. Anyway, thanks for your personal
intepretation/opinion of my state of mind. My statement was of course a
generalisation, not a statement of fact. I do not personally know everyone
in the world, or their interpretation of the nature of force, and cannot
therefore state factually that none of these people understand force. I
know that we still have not unified all the forces.

I think you have focused too much on the play of words I have used and not
on the general discussion raised in the intial thread. Whether I am arogant
or not is irrelevant The only thing that is relevant is whether I am right
or wrong.

Alun