Sirjon

I'm back. Sorry for the long silence. I was busy for a while but I dearly appreciate you people, who participated in this discussion. Please allow me, to how we perceive gravity. First, and obviously the most prominent is the effect of gravity on our 'sense' of feeling. We feel how we're being dragged or pulled down by gravity, so for many, as a practical argument, agreed that gravity is a force. But in General Relativity, it is more like a descriptive visual effect of gravitation on planets and other celestial bodies in outerspace that defined gravity. which also agrees, mathematically and theoretically. Now, we know it well , if two equal forces interact on an object on two opposite directions, the net force is zero. That is the basis at which I am curious about. If the Earth is rotating on its axis, revolving around the sun and other external factors in ouerspace that may, (if somehow, there's something that if it isn't really a kind of force), acting upon us to keep our feet on the ground and stand straight, it isn't correct to speculate that the gravity equal to 9.80665 meter per second per second is only the net 'value' of computaion? If, then we able to gather all information that externally affects gravity on Earth, then isn't possible that there could be a different or higher computation, at all?

I knew it already. But the thing is, if gravity is not some sort of force, what makes a thing hit hard on the ground when fall from a high place, considering a free fall?

“Gravity is the force of attraction that makes things fall straight down.” That is how we commonly describe or define gravity. As to the song “ what goes up must come down”, due to gravity. Then, think about this: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-gravity-is-wrong/2019/08/01/627f3696-a723-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html “ So: “Gravity is what makes things fall straight down.” Well, yes — depending on what we mean by “straight down.” The path seems straight only because you’re standing still relative to the Earth. As Galileo realized, if you drop a rock from the mast of a ship traveling on a river, its trajectory will appear to be an angle to an observer on the shore. Similarly, to someone outside the Earth who is observing a rock falling on our spinning planet, the path would appear to be on an angle. But the Earth is also orbiting the Sun, so that angle would actually be swooping, creating the appearance of a curve. And because the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, that curve would be a very long curve. And the galaxy is moving toward other galaxies, and the universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating: How long and curlicued the rock’s trajectory appears depends wholly on where you are in relation to it. “ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, think about the forces that summed up to the given statement above: 1. First, the rotation of the Earth from it’s axis. Somehow you might say, it should bend into an angle, the fall of a thing, instead of gravity “makes things fall straight down”. Scientists would say, the Earth is very big that gravity is too strong that the rotation of the earth from it’s axis will have no effect and still, things will fall straight down. Okay, I will agree. 2. Second, we know well, that the Earth is traveling (revolving) around the Sun. So, we should also consider that factor. So the force of the Earth’s gravitational attraction would be greater than what we expected. 3. Third, the sun is also moving, revolving around the center of our galaxy. Add more force to counter that effect to keep things to fall straight down here on Earth (due to gravity). . 4th and so on - Our galaxy is moving toward other galaxies and the Universe is expanding, if it is right, in accelerating speed. So, adding all those factors, what should really be the counter-force to keep or makes things fall straight down due to Earth’s gravitational attraction? It would then contradict what scientists belief that gravitation. is about a million billion billion billion times weaker than the weak nuclear force. Think about it. I'm just wondering if there someone could answer my speculation.

As I see it, at a point of singularity, the universe is at 'zero' size, could only mean 'nothing' , when it comes to its physical dimension. Is am wrong? Correct grammar:Am I wrong? This is what I mean regarding Dark matters https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html Correction: Dark matter (singular)

As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity'

Okay, thanks for that information.

IMO, as to my understanding as what DM is about, there is 'something' out there that cannot be seen, undetected by instruments by NASA or other scientific entities that causing the Universe to expand. So, in term of standard notion of how we determine a thing, there is 'nothing' out there but definitely, it's affecting the behavior of the Universe. It is still some kind of a mystery that science still searching for an answer. There's no such thing as something that came out of 'nothing'. The reason why the BB is still an incomplete theory, as it only indicates that matter, space and universe came out of 'nothing' (if we speak of its physical dimension).

I have a playboy friend whose girlfriends' names always associated with their fathers' job.and he's proud to be a 'Big Time' playboy! Like May, who's father is a city MAYor (mayor) Prescy (nickname for Priscilla) who's father is a bank's prescydent (president) Shane, who's father is shane-a-tor (senator) Then suddenly, he said, "... except Jane"? Why? Let me think... maybe because his father is a jane-ne-ral (perhaps, a general in the army) "NO, ...his father is a "Jane-tor (Janitor)!

A guy took his lunch in a restaurant. After the lunch, he realized he lost his wallet. So he thought of something to get out of that silly situation. He told the waiter that he lost his wallet but he challenged the waiter that, it would be a free lunch if he able to bite his right eye. The waiter told himself that its only a few bucks to pay the guy's lunch, so he accepted the challenge. He was surprised then that the guy has an artificial eye - the guy took out the eyeball and bit it. As the waiter went on to clean the table, the guy told him, "if you want I can also bite my left eye, if you pay for the food for a take out". To make sure, the waiter asked if the guy could see the color of the table, the curtains and everything. At the time that he was sure that the left eye is not an artificial - he took the challenge. The guy took out the false teeth from his mouth, a pair of complete false teeth and bit his left eye. Moral lesson: Never trust people of how they look!

I respect your opinion. Okay, let me put it this way -your argument that if you imagine, "the Easter Bunny having sex with a purple unicorn while riding a surf board on a star in the eagle nebula as your unborn child films all of this as a yet to be developed sperm" would not be possible is obviously, philosophically hypothetical. Every study in science need to be backed up by proofs. While scientists are thinking the 'whys' and the 'hows' of a certain thing, an inventor take advantage of the 'use' of that 'why' and 'how'. That is the good thing about technology - it makes one's imagination a reality. Now, if we base the concept of Imagination as to be, 'not possible' due to some restriction, then you are correct. Useful "imagination' could be possible if we do the effort to find ways to do and make it real. I don't know how you 'define' imagination and i don't know if anyone will imagine something that he believe to be invalid or will have no better use for mankind. So, if by saying things you imagine is possible as technological achievement, why not? But imagining something out of the 'principles' of nature or science can be considered to be 'false', is of course, is how we conceive it, based on something that we generally accepted. Still, there were instances that one's imagination disclaimed other people's belief , such example, the way Copernicus challenged Ptolemy's understanding of heavenly bodies. So if by the way I see 'imagination' as to my own understanding it, then I conclude, "Yes, if I can imagine it, it is possible"

Why not? Buy time and it will be... the only question, are we still alive at that time? Heard of the story about how computer been developed? Now compare your smart phone to a room-size computers of the early years? Nothing is impossible, as long as it exists in our minds. The only question is, how to do it. We considered Charles Babbage to be the father of Computers. The only hindrance during his time is the limitation of gears and cams. Now that we have ICs and our technology enable to conquer time and space ( processing data in microseconds and chips in nanometer sizes), nothing is impossible, the only thing that it is not possible at this time is that it is not yet exist in 'real world'.

Sorry to intervene... some comments analyze the proposed statement, "If I can imagine, it is possible" as based on the type of argument (reducio ad absurdum, etc). Others based it on Science... far out? (Sorry for the term) Let's direct to the point - If I can imagine, it is possible". My answer - YES, of course In earlier civilization, man dreamed of 'flying'. The idea started from his 'imagination'. It took man centuries to realize that it is POSSIBLE! We have spaceships, jets, gliders and all them EXISTS! So what you imagined before, is today's reality. Imagination, is one way or one man's thinking mechanism to study things of how possible to achieve his 'objective'. A wheel could not be started if man never imagine on how to pull a big of stone out from a mountain and curved it into a statue. So yes, IF I CAN IMAGINE, IT IS POSSIBLE. It only takes time, to make it happen!

God is the creator of everything. Now if God created everything, then there will be steps on how God created a thing - then the question of 'if there are laws of nature', then the answer is - "There are". Why? We learned in Biology how nature balance our ecosystem. http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwepecosystems.hmtl Then we will go back to the question, "Is the laws of nature, God"? There are two things of argument. If God created nature, then it is God but if God is part of nature, then God must also comply with the laws of nature. am I right? The second one, if we based it to 'division of labors' of gods (Mythology), each god has power to control of the nature within his/her 'watch'. So nature, after all is not God. If good and evil are clashing because of two major parties competing with each other (The god of good and the god of evil or in Christian world, one god but created man to have the freedom to do good or evil), then their battlefield is 'nature'. One party trying to preserve nature and the other, to destroy it. If God created the Universe, then the laws of nature is God. But we cannot also deny the possibility that there could also be a higher god other than the god we know, if this god only rules this part of cosmos. So, the laws of nature, in this case is not God. For me, the more relevant thing to be concerned of, is, if the laws of nature, God, why it seems 'man' tend to destroy it, just to fit the environment for our needs? Industrialization cause pollution and other damage to planet Earth and yet, we developed them by studying the the laws of nature and apply it to fit our needs. So, are we, also gods? I conclude then, as to the above analysis, the laws of nature is not God, at all.

When it comes to man's behavior - Newton's Law of Gravity works perfectly. It proven that in distances between the brain, heart and that's 'in between our legs', the attraction is stronger if we're closer to the center of gravity. Agree?

Funny things about Filipinos reading newspapers ads and everything - "Wanted Sales Rep"... what the heck, I don't have any idea of selling refs (refrigerators), let me look for another page! Damn it ... until now "Mr. Immediately is not yet been captured by the law enforcers? It still say here, "Wanted Immediately !"

Hi, I'm new too...forgot to introduce myself yet I posted some threads already. Apology for those geeks out there who happened to read my blogs. I think the main title is a little bit "too harsh".Sorry... to mellow it down, forget it and soon I'll change it into "Gravity Applied to THe Fundamental Laws of Physics", promise.