Bishop Barkeley's Space and Time Are Mere Illusions

[Sirjon]

It seems...

The understanding of the universe is in the hands of the Mathematicians, not with Scientists. 
All that we observes are mere 'illusions' as  we are being misconceived by the far and the near, the small and the big. the fast and the slow, the flats and the rounds. The ultimate goal is to find a a set of equations to explain the discrepancies and a math that will give the equivalence to unify them. 
We will achieve it if we become as smart as the one, God or not, who designed it. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Sirjon
Typed 'Time' twice in the Title box and put Capital letters to some Words, also in the Title box; Deleted 'and' also in the Title box are appeared twice. ; Checked my grammar, much better to say, 'in the hands' rather than 'on' the hands of Mathematicians

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Sirjon said:

All that we observes are mere 'illusions' as  we are being misconceived by the far and the near, the small and the big. the fast and the slow, the flats and the rounds.

What is the basis for this claim?

9 hours ago, Sirjon said:

The ultimate goal is to find a a set of equations to explain the discrepancies and a math that will give the equivalence to unify them. 

To explain the observed behavior, yes. To what discrepancies do you refer?

[Sirjon]

The discrepancies I'm talking about are the unexplained contradictions or may I say, unexpected events that did not conform to what Science should be leading into, if logical reasoning is applied. Let me give you some examples:  

1) Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The planets' pull of gravity keep them stay in their respective orbits. The same principle apply for all heavenly bodies such as the galaxies. Now, we know it was observed  that galaxies are moving away from each other. 

2) There is no such thing as 'object at rest' .If we consider that the earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, the sun is following a pattern of direction of motion relative to its position in our galaxy, while our galaxy doing the same thing, in tremendous speeds, then 'how' strong the earth's gravity really is (if gravity is an attracting force) to keep a stone in the sand to stay on its position? 

3) Previously, we observed the universe phase of expansion (as a whole), is speeding up  and yet lately, the findings in the near galaxies show, that the observed expansion seems to be slowing down. Could it be, that like the earth, which has an elliptical orbit, the sun could be now entering the long curve or the short curve of it's journey in the outer space? 

4) Why CMB is effective at large scale distances of cosmos while MOND at local or small distances? Could it be that there is a much higher kind of geometry that we're not yet discovered that will explain and match them together? 

5) Why there are things in nature that shows the Fibonacci's pattern are all over the places, even in the cosmos? Is this a  clue that this could be the blueprint to explain nature and the universe?

According to Bishop Barkeley - matter, space and time are just 'illusions' based on our senses and perception. I don't agree on that. The illusions I'm referring into are the wrong 'starting points' that leading us into something that seems to be correct at the beginning and yet lead us into a confusion, at the end. Einstein don't believe that 'God plays dice' as against 'Heisenberg's principle of 'Uncertainty'. I agree with Einstein. The laws of nature is based on a set of equations, not on a single GUT but rather in a kind of higher Math system that will explain, later, why A is not B but if we're smarter enough, we can explain, first on 'HOW' A is not B and not based on the 'whys', alone.  

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Sirjon
'changed the word contractions into 'contradictions'

[Endy0816]

59 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

The discrepancies I'm talking about are the unexplained contradictions or may I say, unexpected events that did not conform to what Science should be leading into, if logical reasoning is applied. Let me give you some examples:  

1) Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The planets' pull of gravity keep them stay in their respective orbits. The same principle apply for all heavenly bodies such as the galaxies. Now, we know it was observed  that galaxies are moving away from each other.

Within the supercluster we'll actually loosely collide with the Andromeda Galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

 

Now between the superclusters we see metric expansion. I think of it in terms of distance being added. Like a crew extending a road between cities. The path length increases despite the endpoints not moving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Metric_expansion_and_speed_of_light

59 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

2) There is no such thing as 'object at rest' .If we consider that the earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, the sun is following a pattern of direction of motion relative to its position in our galaxy, while our galaxy doing the same thing, in tremendous speeds, then 'how' strong the earth's gravity really is (if gravity is an attracting force) to keep a stone in the sand to stay on its position?  

If you jump up in a plane are you not thrown backwards, right? Momentum is reason behind that and why those speeds don't impact us in our every day life.

 

You are either at rest or moving in respect to something else. We might normally pick the road if in a vehicle for example, then you might have some velocity with respect to the road. You can pick anything you want to though.

Better to consider whether distance is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same between you and whatever you choose. If it remaining the same you are at rest with respect to that.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Endy0816

[Sirjon]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Within the supercluster we'll actually loosely collide with the Andromeda Galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

 

Now between the superclusters we see metric expansion. I think of it in terms of distance being added. Like a crew extending a road between cities. The path length increases despite the endpoints not moving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Metric_expansion_and_speed_of_light

If you jump up in a plane are you not thrown backwards, right? Momentum is reason behind that and why those speeds don't impact us in our every day life.

 

You are either at rest or moving in respect to something else. We might normally pick the road if in a vehicle for example, then you might have some velocity with respect to the road. You can pick anything you want to though.

Better to consider whether distance is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same between you and whatever you choose. If it remaining the same you are at rest with respect to that.

True. Somehow, that is how we perceive things, in relative to something. Now, if we speak about the speed of the earth's rotation and the speed of sun's travel in space, the swirling of galaxies and , if gravity is a force, with all the gravitational forces that acting upon to make that stone stay motionless in its position, then we should come up with the question "how" it happening that way? So, the earth's gravity 'g', is simply a net, as we perceived it, of all the factors we need to consider. Not the other way around. We based things only on how we observed things. We calculate things based on the data we gathered. But the thing is, we are also seems entangled with the principles or laws we're proposing , if new discoveries were presented that are different from our previous knowledge  We should be more 'imaginative' as what Einstein did in his famous work on 'relativity', started with his 'thought experiment'.

  

Note: Wish to correct myself...please edit, " God does not play 'dice'. 

I'm sorry, my statement is correct, Einstein DON'T believe, " God plays dice". no need to edit it.

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Sirjon

[MigL]

You haven't listed any ACTUAL discrepancies.
And no, discrepancies in your mind due to insufficient knowledge, are NOT actual discrepancies.

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, Sirjon said:

True. Somehow, that is how we perceive things, in relative to something. Now, if we speak about the speed of the earth's rotation and the speed of sun's travel in space, the swirling of galaxies and , if gravity is a force, with all the gravitational forces that acting upon to make that stone stay motionless in its position, then we should come up with the question "how" it happening that way? So, the earth's gravity 'g', is simply a net, as we perceived it, of all the factors we need to consider. Not the other way around. We based things only on how we observed things. We calculate things based on the data we gathered. But the thing is, we are also seems entangled with the principles or laws we're proposing , if new discoveries were presented that are different from our previous knowledge  We should be more 'imaginative' as what Einstein did in his famous work on 'relativity', started with his 'thought experiment'.

No g is just due to the Earth's mass.

F = GM_Earthm_Stone / r²

F = m_Stoneg

m_Stoneg =GM_Earthm_Stone / r²

g = GM_Earth / r²

Otherwise the Earth and stone are simply moving through space at the same rate. Relative to the Earth the stone is stationary.

 

[Sirjon]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

No g is just due to the Earth's mass.

Yes, that's correct. The very reason that there should be a higher Math that we need to discover (maybe, the right word is to develop), to explain this. If you just imagine, how much attraction you need to keep a 'stone' stay put' on the surface of the ground, if we talk about all the tremendous speeds we discovered, relative to our position in space?In that case,  the 'g' as due to earth's mass would then be, just another thing.  I don't know if you're grasping what I am intending to present here. If you, by the previous knowledge that we have, says that g is just due to the earth's mass, there's nothing to argue about. But how can we explain that at 120 mph, we feel we're being thrown back against our car's seat, in contrast to,  if the earth is rotating at 1,600 mph, along with the speed of 67,000 mph as it travels along  its orbit around the sun, while the sun 514,000 mph moving around the our galactic center and so forth - I think the 32 feet per sec square would not be then,  the correct value, to expect. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You haven't listed any ACTUAL discrepancies.
And no, discrepancies in your mind due to insufficient knowledge, are NOT actual discrepancies.

I thought, I supposed not expect 'math analysis' in this section ... am I? I'm saying things, philosophically... or do philosophy needs to have  a Ph.D in Math or Science, now-a-days?

[Endy0816]

You only feel that force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,000 mph you won't feel it.

 

There are more forces going on than just gravity due to the Earth, but they are minor in comparison. The Earth is both massive and close.

While you might have some weight(mg), you can also have the Earth's rotation very slightly countering the downward force you feel for example.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/94-does-your-weight-change-between-the-poles-and-the-equator-intermediate

[beecee]

On 3/2/2019 at 2:43 PM, Sirjon said:

It seems...The understanding of the universe is in the hands of the Mathematicians, not with Scientists. 

Wrong...The current understanding of the universe is due to physics/cosmology, state of the art equipment and the associated data gained, and the professionals that determine the best interpretation of what we observe. Maths is simply the language they use and Bishop Barkley does not have the expertise or learning to comment. Space and time, and spacetime are real aspects that are affected by mass/energy.

Quote

The discrepancies I'm talking about are the unexplained contradictions or may I say, unexpected events that did not conform to what Science should be leading into, if logical reasoning is applied. Let me give you some examples:  

  What discrepancies? And the examples you gave are not discrepancies, 

7 hours ago, Sirjon said:

1) Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The planets' pull of gravity keep them stay in their respective orbits. The same principle apply for all heavenly bodies such as the galaxies. Now, we know it was observed  that galaxies are moving away from each other. 

Yes and as explained in another thread, that is because over large scales, expansion overcomes gravity as explained by the more accurate and precise GR.

Quote

2) There is no such thing as 'object at rest' .If we consider that the earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, the sun is following a pattern of direction of motion relative to its position in our galaxy, while our galaxy doing the same thing, in tremendous speeds, then 'how' strong the earth's gravity really is (if gravity is an attracting force) to keep a stone in the sand to stay on its position? 

Not sure what you are getting at, but yes, correct so what? Oh and certainly no butts about "if gravity is an attractive force", both in Newtonian and due to the curvature of spacetime in GR.  

Quote

3) Previously, we observed the universe phase of expansion (as a whole), is speeding up  and yet lately, the findings in the near galaxies show, that the observed expansion seems to be slowing down. Could it be, that like the earth, which has an elliptical orbit, the sun could be now entering the long curve or the short curve of it's journey in the outer space? 

Again, the observational data tells us that the universe is expanding over large scales, and accelerating in that expansion rate, while the gravity [curved spacetime] from the larger mass energy densities over smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies and beyond, have such regions decoupled from the overall large scale accelerating expansion. No problem there. 

Quote

4) Why CMB is effective at large scale distances of cosmos while MOND at local or small distances? Could it be that there is a much higher kind of geometry that we're not yet discovered that will explain and match them together?

??The CMBR is observed everywhere and is a left over, relic heat from when the observable universe was smaller, denser, and hotter. This has nothing to do with MOND.

Quote

5) Why there are things in nature that shows the Fibonacci's pattern are all over the places, even in the cosmos? Is this a  clue that this could be the blueprint to explain nature and the universe?

Nup, just Mother Nature and coincidences.

 

Quote

According to Bishop Barkeley - matter, space and time are just 'illusions' based on our senses and perception. I don't agree on that. The illusions I'm referring into are the wrong 'starting points' that leading us into something that seems to be correct at the beginning and yet lead us into a confusion, at the end. Einstein don't believe that 'God plays dice' as against 'Heisenberg's principle of 'Uncertainty'. I agree with Einstein. The laws of nature is based on a set of equations, not on a single GUT but rather in a kind of higher Math system that will explain, later, why A is not B but if we're smarter enough, we can explain, first on 'HOW' A is not B and not based on the 'whys', alone.

  Not really too interested in this Barkley bloke, but Einstein as great as he was, was also at times wrong, and one of the areas he did seem to err in was quantum theory and what it entails. At least he had some misgivings about it, But also worth noting that another bloke called Neils Bohr [I think] or was that Feynman? said that anyone that claims to understand Quantum mechanics, does not really understand Quantum mechanics, or words to that effect.

Edited March 3, 2019 by beecee

[studiot]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Not really too interested in this Barkley bloke

Since one of the purposes of this forum is to help folks get things right it would be good to point out the correct spelling of this bloke's name.

Berkeley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

This might help those who do want to know more.

:)

[swansont]

19 hours ago, Sirjon said:

The discrepancies I'm talking about are the unexplained contradictions or may I say, unexpected events that did not conform to what Science should be leading into, if logical reasoning is applied. Let me give you some examples:  

1) Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The planets' pull of gravity keep them stay in their respective orbits. The same principle apply for all heavenly bodies such as the galaxies. Now, we know it was observed  that galaxies are moving away from each other. 

We can send rockets away from the earth, too. It doesn’t invalidate gravity.

Quote

2) There is no such thing as 'object at rest' .If we consider that the earth rotates on its axis, revolves around the sun, the sun is following a pattern of direction of motion relative to its position in our galaxy, while our galaxy doing the same thing, in tremendous speeds, then 'how' strong the earth's gravity really is (if gravity is an attracting force) to keep a stone in the sand to stay on its position? 

You can’t tell, if something is in an inertial frame is in motion. All you can say is there is relative motion between two objects. Either one could be at rest.

 

[Strange]

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

1) Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The planets' pull of gravity keep them stay in their respective orbits. The same principle apply for all heavenly bodies such as the galaxies. Now, we know it was observed  that galaxies are moving away from each other. 

That is because Newton's law of gravity is a good approximation in many cases, but it is not always accurate. That is why General Relativity was developed, which then predicted the expansion of the universe.

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

2) There is no such thing as 'object at rest'

As all motion is relative, we can define any object to be "at rest". We usually choose the most convenient frame of reference, in practice, and then there can be objects at rest in that frame of reference.

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

3) Previously, we observed the universe phase of expansion (as a whole), is speeding up  and yet lately, the findings in the near galaxies show, that the observed expansion seems to be slowing down.

Do you have a reference for that?

A bunch of guy got Nobel Prizes for showing the expansion is getting faster. I suspect it would have made he news if they had been shown to be wrong.

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

4) Why CMB is effective at large scale distances of cosmos while MOND at local or small distances?

That makes no sense. They are completely different things. The CMB is radiation we receive from the early universe. MOND is a gravity theory that has not been shown to be correct in any circumstance.

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

5) Why there are things in nature that shows the Fibonacci's pattern are all over the places, even in the cosmos?

Because some things grow additively.

16 hours ago, Sirjon said:

The discrepancies I'm talking about are the unexplained contradictions or may I say, unexpected events that did not conform to what Science should be leading into, if logical reasoning is applied. Let me give you some examples:  

These all seem to be examples of things you misunderstand (or just don't understand at all).

14 hours ago, Sirjon said:

Somehow, that is how we perceive things, in relative to something.

That is how things are. Often we do not perceive it that way.

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

Yes, that's correct. The very reason that there should be a higher Math that we need to discover (maybe, the right word is to develop), to explain this. If you just imagine, how much attraction you need to keep a 'stone' stay put' on the surface of the ground, if we talk about all the tremendous speeds we discovered, relative to our position in space?

But our speed and position is space is irrelevant. The gravity on Earth is just due to the mass and radius of the Earth.

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

I thought, I supposed not expect 'math analysis' in this section ... am I? I'm saying things, philosophically... or do philosophy needs to have  a Ph.D in Math or Science, now-a-days?

Even without math, it is obvious that these "discrepancies" are just examples of your ignorance. Nothing to do with philosophy.

[Sirjon]

16 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

You only feel that force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,000 mph you won't feel it.

The First Law of Motion states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." This simply means that things cannot start, stop, or change direction all by themselves. It takes some force acting on them from the outside to cause such a change. This property of massive bodies to resist changes in their state of motion is sometimes called inertia. 

https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html

Agree, only at the extend that a car, for example speed up in straight track and remain at 120 mph. What if the car tried to go in curve direction as following a circular track? We will keep on feeling the force before our body was able to adjust. We see massive objects moving in circular track in space , so how can it not add up (or has minimal effect),  to the 'actual' force needed to keep us glued on the surface of the earth?

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

The First Law of Motion states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." This simply means that things cannot start, stop, or change direction all by themselves. It takes some force acting on them from the outside to cause such a change. This property of massive bodies to resist changes in their state of motion is sometimes called inertia. 

https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html

So if there is no change in velocity, there is no force. You can’t tell who is moving.

Quote

Agree, only at the extend that a car, for example speed up in straight track and remain at 120 mph. What if the car tried to go in curve direction as following a circular track? We will keep on feeling the force before our body was able to adjust. We see massive objects moving in circular track in space , so how can it not add up (or has minimal effect),  to the 'actual' force needed to keep us glued on the surface of the earth?

A curved track requires a force, in order to change direction.

The force that binds us to the earth is gravity. We can quantify the effect of any curved motion, to see to what extent it matters. If one understands the physics.

[studiot]

On 3/2/2019 at 3:43 AM, Sirjon said:

The understanding of the universe is in the hands of the Mathematicians, not with Scientists. 

I can't see what all this stuff about gravity is to do with the OP or Bishop Berkeley.

But to comment on the above extract,

Sirjon would you rather the wages department of your employer

a) Dipped a scoop into a pile of money each payday and paid you whatever the scoop contained?

or

b) Counted out your correct wages mathematically?

[Sirjon]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

We can send rockets away from the earth, too. It doesn’t invalidate gravity.

You can’t tell, if something is in an inertial frame is in motion. All you can say is there is relative motion between two objects. Either one could be at rest.

 

That's the very point I wish to present to you. If we keep on saying everything works that way because 'that it is how it works', everything remains 'illusion', what if we're been misled by these false 'starting points'? 

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

I can't see what all this stuff about gravity is to do with the OP or Bishop Berkeley.

But to comment on the above extract,

Sirjon would you rather the wages department of your employer

a) Dipped a scoop into a pile of money each payday and paid you whatever the scoop contained?

or

b) Counted out your correct wages mathematically?

 Math is obviously, will save the day. The thing is, when it comes to understanding nature or the universe, it is not that simple math or I may say, there could be another approach, unconventional, that might, someday, unfolds and answer all these mysteries or if allow me to use the word, will match up the 'discrepancies' on how we observe things here on earth and the cosmos. 

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

So if there is no change in velocity, there is no force. You can’t tell who is moving.

A curved track requires a force, in order to change direction.

The force that binds us to the earth is gravity. We can quantify the effect of any curved motion, to see to what extent it matters. If one understands the physics.

So perhaps, all factors that will contribute to the high speed of earth's rotation causing an inertial effect, while curving on it's orbit at 67,000 mph as well as the sun moving also in curve fashion at 514,000 mph has little effect compared to the force of gravity that keep us stay on the surface of the earth, will show how 'powerful' the attraction needed, if we view it in another perspective. So, a slight stop of the earth's rotation will throw us all away in space, if we based it on the Newton's Law of Motion, am I correct? 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Sirjon

[Sirjon]

1 hour ago, Sirjon said:

... will show how 'powerful' the attraction needed, if we view it in another perspective. So, a slight stop of the earth's rotation will throw us all away in space, if we based it on the Newton's Law of Motion, am I correct? 

... or could be, that the earth's gravitational attraction, will be too strong it will even collapse a building down? 

[Endy0816]

Direction is equally important with velocity.

2 hours ago, Sirjon said:

The First Law of Motion states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." This simply means that things cannot start, stop, or change direction all by themselves. It takes some force acting on them from the outside to cause such a change. This property of massive bodies to resist changes in their state of motion is sometimes called inertia. 

https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html

Agree, only at the extend that a car, for example speed up in straight track and remain at 120 mph. What if the car tried to go in curve direction as following a circular track? We will keep on feeling the force before our body was able to adjust. We see massive objects moving in circular track in space , so how can it not add up (or has minimal effect),  to the 'actual' force needed to keep us glued on the surface of the earth?

Velocity is a vector quantity so the direction matters as well.

Kahn Academy has a good guide in regards:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-physics-1/ap-one-dimensional-motion/ap-physics-foundations/v/introduction-to-vectors-and-scalars

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Sirjon said:

So, a slight stop of the earth's rotation will throw us all away in space, if we based it on the Newton's Law of Motion, am I correct? 

 

1 hour ago, Sirjon said:

... or could be, that the earth's gravitational attraction, will be too strong it will even collapse a building down? 

Newton's laws also apply to GR. Einstein's equations reduce to Newtonian at non relativistic speeds.

 

If the Earth stopped rotating suddenly, anything not attached will go flying off at a tangent. Buildings and such will certainly collapse as the atmosphere will keep rotating, and obviously winds of extraordinary hurricane force will be experienced. 

3 hours ago, Sirjon said:

That's the very point I wish to present to you. If we keep on saying everything works that way because 'that it is how it works', everything remains 'illusion', what if we're been misled by these false 'starting points'?  

Not sure I understand properly. Everything works in certain ways and we model these things to reflect what we see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Sirjon said:

what if we're been misled by these false 'starting points'? 

What “false starting points”? Science is based on evidence. If you want to show that existing theories are wrong, you would need evidence. You don’t seem to have any. 

7 hours ago, Sirjon said:

there could be another approach, unconventional, that might, someday, unfolds and answer all these mysteries or if allow me to use the word, will match up the 'discrepancies' on how we observe things here on earth and the cosmos. 

What mysteries?

What discrepancies?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

That's the very point I wish to present to you. If we keep on saying everything works that way because 'that it is how it works', everything remains 'illusion', what if we're been misled by these false 'starting points'? 

How is this "illusion"?

It works well enough for us to land people on the moon, landers on other planets and slingshot probes around them.

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

 Math is obviously, will save the day. The thing is, when it comes to understanding nature or the universe, it is not that simple math or I may say, there could be another approach, unconventional, that might, someday, unfolds and answer all these mysteries or if allow me to use the word, will match up the 'discrepancies' on how we observe things here on earth and the cosmos. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you have an alternate approach that describes how nature behaves, go for it. But science works, so you need something better.

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

So perhaps, all factors that will contribute to the high speed of earth's rotation causing an inertial effect, while curving on it's orbit at 67,000 mph

But if one understands physics, one knows that " curving on it's (sic) orbit at 67,000 mph" is a meaningless phrase, since that curve takes place over the course of a year, and the radius of the orbit matters as well, in order to determine the acceleration. (also, one would use SI units)

The acceleration due to our orbit about the sun is a negligible effect in almost any circumstance (less than 10^-2 m/s^2, or 0.1% of gravity) 

 

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

as well as the sun moving also in curve fashion at 514,000 mph

Again, radius matters. This effect is even smaller.

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

has little effect compared to the force of gravity that keep us stay on the surface of the earth, will show how 'powerful' the attraction needed, if we view it in another perspective.

Attraction needed for what?

11 hours ago, Sirjon said:

So, a slight stop of the earth's rotation will throw us all away in space, if we based it on the Newton's Law of Motion, am I correct? 

What is a "slight stop"?

Stopping the rotation of the earth would be no small feat. Slowing the rotation is happening because we're trading angular momentum with the moon, owing to tidal effects(the fact that the earth's rotation has slowed is why we need to insert leap seconds, but even if we did this as often as once per year, that's one second out of 3.15 x 10^7  Not a big change.), and mass distribution changes on the earth vary our speed because with those changes, angular momentum is conserved. 

[Sirjon]

Alright, this will be my my final ‘say’.

It is true that without Math, scientists will not be able to describe the ‘physics’ of how things work, both in nature and in the universe.

Math is a tool to guide Science. However, I find it well suited for the Mathematicians, in the first place, to develop or to discover, a higher math that will change our view of the world we live in. Euclidean Geometry is good for a static, flat world. Non-Euclidean geometry that involves curved spaces for a static, space-time world as described by Einstein, is another form of geometry. I am wondering now, how the geometry will look like, if circles get bigger and bigger and points move in a spiral path, in an expanding, flat world, which how our universe is being described by science, now-a-days? Or how complicated, it would be, in a 3D expanding world?

My curiosity is even led me to think that if Endy0816 said (On 3/3/2019 at 2:34 pm),“ You only feel the force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,00 mph you won’t feel it”, then if the earth able to increase its speed through acceleration, buy time to adjust on that speed and accelerated again and adjusted repeatedly, then a massive object like an earth could possibly, reach the speed of light, on a certain given length of time. Somehow, it will contradict Einstein’s view that no ‘massive object could reach the speed of light', am I right?

Same as if F= ma, as force is somewhat related to motion (due to the ‘a’ refer to acceleration) how come we define g as a force accelerating at 9.8 meters per second square if we find a stone standing still in a sand?

We learned the speeds of the Earth’s rotation and revolution, Sun’s direction and speed its traveling based on how we ‘relate’ things to a certain reference and the momentum that keep the things on earth glued together on the surface of the earth, still conform to that type of math we’re applying. My math is not that advanced nor my science knowledge is so limited but as I run my imagination, there are still a lot of questions going on. Yes, maybe there are still pieces of puzzle that we not yet discovering and to what it strongly leading me, as a personal opinion, “Scientists should give up the idea that gravity is a force like a magnet attracting everything on its surface” or else, matters, space and time will remain 'illusions'. 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Sirjon
change speed of time into speed of light,

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Sirjon said:

 My curiosity is even led me to think that if Endy0816 said (On 3/3/2019 at 2:34 pm),“ You only feel the force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,00 mph you won’t feel it”, then if the earth able to increase its speed through acceleration, buy time to adjust on that speed and accelerated again and adjusted repeatedly, then a massive object like an earth could possibly, reach the speed of light, on a certain given length of time. Somehow, it will contradict Einstein’s view that no ‘massive object could reach the speed of light', am I right?

No, you are not right. Massive objects cannot attain the speed of light.

5 hours ago, Sirjon said:

Same as if F= ma, as force is somewhat related to motion (due to the ‘a’ refer to acceleration) how come we define g as a force accelerating at 9.8 meters per second square if we find a stone standing still in a sand?

A stone in the sand also has the earth pushing up on it. The net acceleration is zero, as the two forces cancel.

5 hours ago, Sirjon said:

We learned the speeds of the Earth’s rotation and revolution, Sun’s direction and speed its traveling based on how we ‘relate’ things to a certain reference and the momentum that keep the things on earth glued together on the surface of the earth, still conform to that type of math we’re applying.

Gravity keeps us "glued" to the earth's surface. 

5 hours ago, Sirjon said:

My math is not that advanced nor my science knowledge is so limited but as I run my imagination, there are still a lot of questions going on. Yes, maybe there are still pieces of puzzle that we not yet discovering and to what it strongly leading me, as a personal opinion, “Scientists should give up the idea that gravity is a force like a magnet attracting everything on its surface” or else, matters, space and time will remain 'illusions'. 

Your opinion is based on (and limited by) ignorance. You would be well served by studying physics first. You will never understand why you are wrong without it.

[Sirjon]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, you are not right. Massive objects cannot attain the speed of light.

A stone in the sand also has the earth pushing up on it. The net acceleration is zero, as the two forces cancel.

Gravity keeps us "glued" to the earth's surface. 

Your opinion is based on (and limited by) ignorance. You would be well served by studying physics first. You will never understand why you are wrong without it.

Noted.