Jump to content

gravity


Pymander
 Share

Recommended Posts

Throughout history innovative thinkers have had to contend with tides of herd prejudice. Even mythology is replete with such creative intellects, and sometimes, discoveries will change mythology to history + symbolic embellishments, like the story of Troy. Examples of both types include Moses (the Ten Commandments), Jesus (Yeshua ben Yoseph, Sermon on the Mount), Origen Adamantius (Biblical eschatology, many writers today believe that Origen and Origenism were anathematised by the Roman Catholic Church, but an equal number deny this), Martin Luther (triggered the reformation revealing the true teachings of the Bible, hitherto in Latin), Galileo Galilei (challenged Geocentric Astronomy), Isaac Newton (believed in Astrology), Carl Jung (believed in Astrology), and Albert Einstein (challenged the existence absolute space and time, included the observer as an essential element of physical quantities, ideas previously occult).

 

Herd prejudices are often initiated by despotic authorities dispensing arbitrary judgements and associated laws, hypocritically exploiting mediocrity. Much, though, is to force the evolution of intelligence necessary for civilised coexistence and cooperation. Void of intelligence and resulting foresight, mankind innately accepts prejudices and situations from limited perspectives, and resists change thereby beyond comprehension.

 

(Aside to Swansont: happy to cut and paste entire article. Rome wasn't built in a day. How about a level playing field.)

Edited by Pymander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the idea is, it must be right because the herd are against it.

 

Some herds have joining requirements. Science's "herd prejudice" is that reality and rigor are more important than innovation and intuition.

 

Why do these types of criticism always sound like laziness to me?

 

Galilameo: "I don't follow the herd, I'm a creative thinker!"

 

Herd: "Is it because we're going uphill most of the time?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Aside to Swansont: happy to cut and paste entire article. Rome wasn't built in a day. How about a level playing field.)

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Still not sure of your point, why this is in speculations, or what the connection to gravity is.

 

As far as posting an entire article: no, not if that's something that's copyrighted. Rome was indeed not built in a day, but your thoughts need to be presented more coherently and completely than what you've done thus far.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout history innovative thinkers have had to contend with tides of herd prejudice. Even mythology is replete with such creative intellects, and sometimes, discoveries will change mythology to history + symbolic embellishments, like the story of Troy. Examples of both types include Moses (the Ten Commandments), Jesus (Yeshua ben Yoseph, Sermon on the Mount), Origen Adamantius (Biblical eschatology, many writers today believe that Origen and Origenism were anathematised by the Roman Catholic Church, but an equal number deny this), Martin Luther (triggered the reformation revealing the true teachings of the Bible, hitherto in Latin), Galileo Galilei (challenged Geocentric Astronomy), Isaac Newton (believed in Astrology), Carl Jung (believed in Astrology), and Albert Einstein (challenged the existence absolute space and time, included the observer as an essential element of physical quantities, ideas previously occult).

 

Herd prejudices are often initiated by despotic authorities dispensing arbitrary judgements and associated laws, hypocritically exploiting mediocrity. Much, though, is to force the evolution of intelligence necessary for civilised coexistence and cooperation. Void of intelligence and resulting foresight, mankind innately accepts prejudices and situations from limited perspectives, and resists change thereby beyond comprehension.

 

(Aside to Swansont: happy to cut and paste entire article. Rome wasn't built in a day. How about a level playing field.)

Gravity relates how..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I was seriously hoping to see what gravity is.

 

PLAN A: Gravity is just THERE and all we can do is measure it and make use of it.

 

PLAN B: Gravity is an emanation of matter -- and see PLAN A.

 

PLAN C: When we get down to what EVER gravity is, we can turn it on and off and direct it at will.

 

PLAN D: Other. Specify. _________________________________________________

 

Now all I know is that whatever a lot of people think it is, it ain't. No. That's not right, either. Nor scientific, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our overwhelmingly best modelling of gravity, tells us that it is the warping/bending/twisting of spacetime. We can send craft to anywhere within the solar system and even beyond, we can predict with 100% accuracy any extraordinary events in the solar system controlled by gravity such as planetary alignments etc

But why gravity exhibits itself when spacetime is warped/bent/twisted is as yet unknown....

The same applies to the BB/Inflationary theory of the evolution of the universe....We can reasonably discuss that evolution from t+10-43 seconds up to today with great accuracy. But as to why and how the BB took place, as yet we can only speculate.

 

Herd prejudices are often initiated by despotic cranks, nuts, religious ratbags, pseudoscientists, and those with other agendas, that have an unhealthy rabid extreme hatred of science and scientists, for unknown reasons. In Australia we sometimes call it "Tall Poppy Syndrome"

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was seriously hoping to see what gravity is.

 

PLAN A: Gravity is just THERE and all we can do is measure it and make use of it.

 

PLAN B: Gravity is an emanation of matter -- and see PLAN A.

 

PLAN C: When we get down to what EVER gravity is, we can turn it on and off and direct it at will.

 

PLAN D: Other. Specify. _________________________________________________

 

Now all I know is that whatever a lot of people think it is, it ain't. No. That's not right, either. Nor scientific, either.

Ontological (What things are) discussions have taken place here several times over the years and the general response from physicists is that they study behaviour and the intrinsic nature of phenomena is not their domain. What I've come to realise is that it's not really possible to describe fundamental properties in a way that relates to our everyday experience. Quantitative measurements of a phenomena's parameters and how they relate is about the best you can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not allowed to discuss reasons for things that science can't explain.

 

Nobody appreciates guesswork here, since you can waste your time virtually anywhere else on the web with that. We prefer evidential support for our explanations. If you can provide that, it means we might learn something by discussing it with you. It's really pretty simple, and I really don't understand all the pushback. Why are you HERE, on THIS science discussion forum, if not for a more rigorous approach to science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody appreciates guesswork here, since you can waste your time virtually anywhere else on the web with that. We prefer evidential support for our explanations. If you can provide that, it means we might learn something by discussing it with you. It's really pretty simple, and I really don't understand all the pushback. Why are you HERE, on THIS science discussion forum, if not for a more rigorous approach to science?

_ We may change the name of that particle responsible to push vertically on a body on the scale never the less.

 

 

<< I definitely have to believe they are a component of the Gravitational force(s) an s for more than one graviton.

For matter to be moved or displaced there must be inter action, meaning, matter does not let itself through by the same .

For every action there is a reaction.To read the weight of a body on the scale demonstrate to me, a force must includes matter in the equation. I Think the third law of motion is valid in this case and self evident.

I think logic is a term that people in physics are afraid to face evidence, when affected by it Gf, constantly throughout their life, _

If a PARTICLE is too small to be seen but self evidence of it’s action as a fact from the reaction of the other bigger particle, than logic should not be influenced by the size of its opponent._

Gravity is forces from gravitons in motion and when constrained by bigger particle in their path they will be felt as a whole on that surface:

Thanks for reading. (Roger Dynamic Motion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.