TOAWNIF

Hooray. See, it is possible to explain things simply. Now please have a go at Gravity.

I appologise if my need to know has outstripped your ability to explain. English isn't my first language either.

Captains Kirk and Picard taught me all I need to know about where it is and what it does but, I am still no nearer understanding it.

"Sorry!! I 'thought' you,, said; (Puncture) <our> B'a'l'oo'n!";) Ha! Ha!

I do actually, since scientists told me there was a hole in it at the south pole. Scientists eh?

It has been my observation that while scientific evidence could one day be infallible, human interpretation is not. So also my interpretation of what you say now. As I read it your argument goes that a balloon skin could not possibly be 30 kilometres thick and there must be gravity because you can swim. Is that right? Or is my interpretation fallible?

Quickly. I got my info from scientists years ago so paint me dumb for believing scientists eh! I'll read the rest later and get back.

When rockets etc leave our atmosphere the need to do so at a certain angle and within a range of speeds. When they return they heat up to the point of burning up. These effects only occur at the junction between atmosphere and space demonstrating the existence of something different in that place. Sci-Fi nicely provides a name for this, The Chrono-sphere. This in turn is borrowed from mythology Chronos the god who eats planets. I prefer to think of it as a balloon! This happily satisfies me at night that our air will not be shooting off into space by morning.

Thanks. Yes I'm getting the hang of it, slowly.

The theory that I am attempting to formulate is being complicated by the intrusion of ancient Greeks into the mix. Their number system is decimal in nature (probably lacking zero). My question is this. How old would a decimal Greek number system be likely to be? Could it be older for instance than the Arabic Islamic system which, by definition, must be newer than 500AD I always believed that the Muslims invented the decimal system. A date would be useful. :-) :-) -------------------------------------

1. Can you tell me what detectors you use please? 2. Isn't the moon a satellite? I am content with the theory that the moon relies on magnetic forces. And can explain it simply. PS I worked with measuring instruments for a quarter of a century so I shall understand some of what you might say in this regard.

Here is a part of my problem. You say this is an observation but I have never observed it except between magnetic objects or objects falling to earth under the influence of atmospheric pressure. For instance buildings don't attract each other, nor do cars (unless I'm driving one)or planets, in any way that can't be more easily understood in terms of magnetism or, 'as I like to think of it' the space equivalent of atmospheric pressure namely Solar wind or pressure. if as I suggested in my original post, magnetism accounts for ferrous matter and atmosphere for non ferrous matter then gravity looks after the rest surely?

I am a stupid and ignorant being. While your contributions are acceptable and I am sure, worthy, they don't really help me. I actually understood magnetism once and I still retain, I think, a reasonable memory of my understanding of atmospheric pressure. What I have never been able to understand is gravity. Whilst I'm sure the technicalities are astoundingly convincing for the highly educated I think they are mostly incomprehensible to the rest of us. I would appreciate a simple explanation of the hows, whys and wherefores of gravity. If its not too much to ask.

Maybe so. but it was you who made it not me. I was taught if the cap fits wear it. You could easilly have suggested Dracula.

Since this thread seems to have fulfilled it's purpose I shall recycle it rather than start a new one. When I was a lad I heard a story. It went like this. “A man was killed ‘murdered actually’ and after a short time he came back to life and walked upon the earth. He established a following for himself asking that they follow his example. They were to eat human flesh, drink human blood and worship him as a god. These followers were so despised that their enemies slew them in large numbers in various ways however, no matter how they were treated they still kept coming. It is further reported that the man who began all this is still alive and walking among us and that one day he will reveal himself again. What was this chaps name…………?

In my experience the longest word is Why? :mad:

Not mine but somebody's Heaven is where.. The British are the policemen.. The French are the cooks.. The Italians are the lovers.. and the Swiss are the bankers. Hell is where The British are the cooks.. The French are the policemen.. The Italians are the bankers... and the Swiss are the lovers

That isn't what I asked actually. Some Jews abandoned their Jewish faith in Nazi Germany Whilst others clung more firmly, Christians are proud (ostensibly) of those martyrs who insisted on their beliefs to their deaths. 'Modern' people have OPINIONS about everything, as TV keeps reminding me. If something came along tomorrow which offered some attractions benefits etc. to those who would embrace a new belief system would we/ you beat a path to it's door or would you stay home insisting you were right all along. As I wright this I am reminded of something I think Jesus said, (I paraphrase) "When I come I shall destroy the wisdom of man) If anyone did this would you abandon your beliefs. I mean all your beliefs?

Ta much!

How precious (in your opinion) do you think you opinions would be if a situation arose where they did nothing to help and actually held you back?

Yes. but with the described application. I shall follow this up. Thanks for your help.

Thank you. Would this be a little? or a lot?

As I understand it, Sir Isaac Newton, apparently the father of modern science, observed an apple fall from a tree and gravely declared the existence of gravity. Of course it may not have been an apple or even a tree and maybe he wasn’t there, or, possibly it was two other fellows’. Actually, it could have been earlier or later than the time specified. However, the fact remains that since that time the world has practically filled up with gravity. So now, as I understand it, we have a holy trinity of forces keeping us safely secure on this planet of ours. We have magnetism at the planet core preventing all the magnets, iron bearing rocks and ferrous metals from flying away, atmospheric pressure pushing all the non ferrous materials to earth and gravity doing everything else. Magnetism is measured in Webbers? Atmospheric pressure in psi? Kpc2 or bars and gravity in……… well actually in itself? 1G is one gravity where G stands for gravity and 1 stands for one. Apparently! I took a longish tube, sealed it at one end with my finger, immersed its other end in water and slowly pulled it away from the water surface without pulling it out and the water filled the tube as it rose. When I did pull it out the water fell out unceremoniously. Firemen do something similar when priming a pump; instead of a finger they exhaust air with engine exhaust. At least they used to. Unless I’m wrong again. If I took a giant test tube, inserted an electric filament connected to a supply, at the sealed end and then upended it in a large body of water and ignited the filament, thereby exhausting the air, I would expect to see my tube fill up with water. Would I be disappointed? Theorise if you will, a tube rising to the ozone layer and beyond. A b****y powerful filament and a really good supply of both electricity and water. Could I reasonably expect the water to rise to a goodly height? Would it be likely (assuming laboratory conditions) to rise only to a particular height and therefore, possibly, reveal another quality of gravity? Could gravity be measured by the difference between the force a lack of air would produce and atmospheric pressure? I am a flawed intellect, please don’t punish me for my lousy expression but turn your attention to the question. Can the existence of gravity be demonstrated in this way? Or some other of which I am unaware? And leave my grammar alone please or you might offend my spell-check.

Quite so and thank you, but that wasn't the question. I had just never heard of enactivate.

I'm deeply sorry to have put you out uneccessarilly but another attempt brought forth a much better result from the online dictionary. Thus; Enactivism (psychology) Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia - Cite This Source In psychology, and the cognitive sciences more generally, enactivism is a theoretical approach to understanding the mind. It incorporates an historical perspective -- in the sense that each individual's developmental trajectory shapes their understanding of reality -- with the result that it can be seen to subsume and synthesize arguments from embodied and situated cognition to present an alternative to cognitivism. Enactivists criticize representational views of the mind and emphasize the importance of embodiment and action to cognition. Results for: enactive View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopaedia | All Reference | the Web Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source en·ac·tive /ɛnˈæktɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ak-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective having power to enact or establish, as a law. [Origin: 1650–60; enact + -ive] My first effort produced a very different result. Thanks. Can't imagine what it would be doing in an advertisement though. Unless of course it wasn't. Mysteriously!