Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


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

Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'? - Physics Forum

Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2007, 10:14 AM
G.H. Diel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-2007, 01:03 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?

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


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2007, 01:03 PM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?

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


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2007, 02:23 AM
RH Nigl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?


"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


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2007, 02:23 AM
RH Nigl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?


"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


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2007, 03:53 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?

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


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2007, 03:53 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'?

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


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
force , gravity , include , separate


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PHYSICS, Ex Chao Ordo Donald G. Shead Physics Forum 2 01-03-2012 11:26 AM
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
Why include 'gravity' as a separate 'force'? G.H. Diel Physics Forum 0 05-31-2007 10:14 AM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
21st Century Dynamics Donald G. Shead Physics Forum 5 08-14-2003 11:43 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.18970 seconds with 16 queries