Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?

Suppose gravity (g), as a force is removed from all models and only
acceleration (a),
of any mass (m), remains, what then? 'Acceleration' is easily identified,
apparently,
the same can not be said in the search 'gravity'.

After all, the two are equivalent are they not?

Dear G.H. Diel:
"G.H. Diel" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] ...

Correct, in current physics, gravity is not a force.


How do you describe the "centralized" action of acceleration, of
one mass towards another? Acceleration does not care where the
other mass is located... but gravitation does.


Because it is not enough.


No. You are missing the universal gravitational constant, the
mass of "the other" actor, and the distance between them.

David A. Smith

Dear G.H. Diel:
"G.H. Diel" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] ...

Correct, in current physics, gravity is not a force.


How do you describe the "centralized" action of acceleration, of
one mass towards another? Acceleration does not care where the
other mass is located... but gravitation does.


Because it is not enough.


No. You are missing the universal gravitational constant, the
mass of "the other" actor, and the distance between them.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:XIz7i.417563$[Only registered users see links. ]...
We'll, you've seen those simplified two-dimensional 'rubber sheet'
animations that Brian Greene is so fond of that represent the fabric of
'space-time' warped by dropping a spherical mass into it ... and then
another mass (smaller) is captured and goes into orbit around it, the
'warpage' controls the 'centralized' action of acceleration, does it not?
Now, visualize the same animation in three-dimension, 'the other' actor, is
merely following a path of least resistance, (relative to its acceleration,
of course).

'Gravitational Constant'? Even Cavendish relied on the timing of a torsion
balance apparatus' occillating balance beam ... I'm not really trying to
dispute Newtonian standards, I wonder why, *gravity*, if so pervasive, is so
difficult to sample, (ie. as either particle or wave) as a fundamental
entity, and all that has been accomplished so far is simply measuring
effects. That's like calling a switch, wires and a light bulb, ...
'electricity'.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful consideration.

GHD

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:XIz7i.417563$[Only registered users see links. ]...
We'll, you've seen those simplified two-dimensional 'rubber sheet'
animations that Brian Greene is so fond of that represent the fabric of
'space-time' warped by dropping a spherical mass into it ... and then
another mass (smaller) is captured and goes into orbit around it, the
'warpage' controls the 'centralized' action of acceleration, does it not?
Now, visualize the same animation in three-dimension, 'the other' actor, is
merely following a path of least resistance, (relative to its acceleration,
of course).

'Gravitational Constant'? Even Cavendish relied on the timing of a torsion
balance apparatus' occillating balance beam ... I'm not really trying to
dispute Newtonian standards, I wonder why, *gravity*, if so pervasive, is so
difficult to sample, (ie. as either particle or wave) as a fundamental
entity, and all that has been accomplished so far is simply measuring
effects. That's like calling a switch, wires and a light bulb, ...
'electricity'.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful consideration.

GHD

Dear RH Nigl:

"RH Nigl" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] ...
....

Yes, using gravitation to explain gravitation is pretty clever
isn't it? That "mental model" won't work without gravitation...
so you really explain nothing, but do lead one to think of other
models.


So it is more than just acceleration, it is acceleration
involving two masses, a direction vector between them, and a
constant.


Why not? I do. Especially when formulated into GR...

By the way sqrt( GM ) is very stable, and accurate to many
decimal places. More than G itself.


What is so surprising? Charge is equally "grey", and provides
"spooky action at a distance" too. And we model its effects as
both / either wave and / or particle, depending on the choice of
model. And there are "arbitrary" constants involved in scaling
its effects too.


David A. Smith

Dear RH Nigl:

"RH Nigl" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] ...
....

Yes, using gravitation to explain gravitation is pretty clever
isn't it? That "mental model" won't work without gravitation...
so you really explain nothing, but do lead one to think of other
models.


So it is more than just acceleration, it is acceleration
involving two masses, a direction vector between them, and a
constant.


Why not? I do. Especially when formulated into GR...

By the way sqrt( GM ) is very stable, and accurate to many
decimal places. More than G itself.


What is so surprising? Charge is equally "grey", and provides
"spooky action at a distance" too. And we model its effects as
both / either wave and / or particle, depending on the choice of
model. And there are "arbitrary" constants involved in scaling
its effects too.


David A. Smith