Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

This premise is incorrect.

L@@K!  An AOL fucktard posting from Google!

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

No we are not. If gravity arises out of the curvature of space (the
General Relativity picture) then they are the same. Solar gravity and
the Earth's acceleration. Clearly experimental verification to greater
and greater accuracy is not really enough.

http://www.kfki.hu/eotvos/onehund.html  100 years of the Eotvos
experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment This shows
the accuracy of modern experiments

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/

These experiments intend to get down to 10^-13 - a considerable
achievement. The academics at Washington university do not dispute the
basic GR equivalence. What they are looking for is a short range
gravitational force. Now string theory (if you believe in it) predicts
that gravity will obey an 8th power law at short distances because of
the extra dimensions. ST tells us it might be possible to have sub
atomic black holes in the lab.

 - Ian Parker

"Gravity there makes inertia here"
--E. Mach
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit"
--E. Fudd

"The Origin of Gravity"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6

Sue...

Exact.

Or tends to apply pressure (weight) ff it is prevented from
increasing its velocity, just like bodies lying at the surface
of the Earth. Weight is downwards pressure applied by
bodies since they are prevented from moving further
towardsthe center of the Earth while continuously being
subjected to gravity.

Right. This would be an impulse.

Nothing. This is physical reality.

Inertia is related to velocity, which itself is related to energy in
excess
of rest mass (for massive particles).

For photons, the velocity being constant, the inertia is directly
related to
the amount of energy making up the photon.

I for one am not amazed by it. This is just observed reality.

André Michaud

Maybe after you graduate from elementary school, you'll see things a
bit differently.

Dear Osmium:  Gravity can, also, cause objects to decelerate.  Since
the "force of gravity" is exactly equal to near-Earth objects’
WEIGHTS, then 'g' is just a continuous downward force.  Such uniform
forces will cause a UNIFORM acceleration of 32.147 feet per second
EACH second.  All uniform accelerations will cause an ADDITIVE
increase in VELOCITY of 32.174 feet EACH second.  If a plot is made of
the Distance of fall vs. Time, such curve will be an inverted
parabola.  The velocity corresponds, exactly, to the SLOPE of such
parabola at the point in Time in question.
    Major errors were made by Coriolis—who gave us the 1830 equation
for kinetic energy: KE = 1/2 mv^2.  You should note the similarity
between the latter equation and Einstein's E = mc^2.  In fact,
Einstein used Coriolis as the basis for SR, but WITHOUT verifying
whether Coriolis's equation was correct.  Such, most certainly, is not
correct!
    The Law of the Conservation of Energy states: Except for some
atomic phenomena, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Coriolis's equation, above, has KE increasing exponentially with the
time of fall.  For such to be true, the FORCE causing the fall must be
increasing exponentially, too.  As you must realize, UNIFORM forces
are associated with additive, or LINEAR increases in the VELOCITY (of
the falling object).  So, the Law of the Conservation of Energy is
violated when one says that KE is increasing exponentially, when the
FORCE acting on the object remains constant!
    What the above means is: Albert Einstein had ZERO idea what
acceleration is!  His ignorance is manifested in his SR 'notion':
"There isn't enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a
speck of matter to travel to velocity 'c'." (sic!)  The later quote is
patently untrue!  In about one year's time, by applying a rocket
engine force = to the rocket's weight, such will reach 'c'.  Einstein
believed that "acceleration" is a PARABOLIC increase in velocity.
(sic!)  The latter would actually be an acceleration-of-the-
acceleration.
    It’s easy to understand how a MORON like Einstein got the wrong
idea about acceleration.  He looked at the ERRONEOUS way of defining
'g', which was: g = 32.174 feet per second SQUARED…  And he saw that
Coriolis was claiming that KE increases exponentially.  And he saw
that Newton was claimed that the force of gravity is inversely
proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between the objects’
centers.  All THREE of those statements are WRONG—as those equations
relate to "universal" gravity!
    Something as simple as using the wrong FORM for defining 'g' has
resulted in over a century of the DARK AGES of Einstein, in all of
science!  Please know that my disproofs of SR and GR are total and
complete!  Those interested can read the following links.  —
NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894
/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0
/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b
?hl=en#

Try this:

The attractive force of  the bodies in the universe pull a mass
in all directions or isotropically.    That is inertia.

If one mass is significantly close to another, they
spoil that isotropy for each other.

See animatitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

<< E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the

inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation

that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same

sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).

This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity

which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.

It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the

free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured

in general relativity by the circumstance

that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

Sue...

It doesn't have to fall.