Question about the force of gravity [Archive]

AA Institute

Dec6-04, 07:17 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I\'m sure it has been\ndiscussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted\ntheoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates from all known\nmaterial objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?\n\nIs it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces\nwhich bind the material object together (from which gravity emanates as a\nsurplus of net forces), or is it something more fundamental which\nsomehow curves space/time around the material body?\n\nThanks,\nAbdul Ahad\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I'm sure it has been
discussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted
theoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates from all known
material objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?

Is it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces
which bind the material object together (from which gravity emanates as a
surplus of net forces), or is it something more fundamental which
somehow curves space/time around the material body?

Thanks,
Abdul Ahad

Uncle Al

Dec7-04, 11:10 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>AA Institute wrote:\n>\n> I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I\'m sure it has been\n> discussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted\n> theoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates from all known\n> material objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?\n\nGravitation is not "emitted." It is a consequence of spacetime\ngeometry. Black holes gravitate external to their event horizons.\n\n> Is it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces\n> which bind the material object together (from which gravity emanates as a\n> surplus of net forces), or is it something more fundamental which\n> somehow curves space/time around the material body?\n\nGravitation has no apparent electromagnetic ties, not even if you are\nwearing Kaluza-Klein jeans. It cannot be mediated by other\ninteractions because their quanta are massed and have finite range.\n\nAnnalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916)\nhttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf\n<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>\n<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>\nLongitudinal and transverse mass\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>AA Institute wrote:
>
> I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I'm sure it has been
> discussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted
> theoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates from all known
> material objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?

Gravitation is not "emitted." It is a consequence of spacetime
geometry. Black holes gravitate external to their event horizons.

> Is it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces
> which bind the material object together (from which gravity emanates as a
> surplus of net forces), or is it something more fundamental which
> somehow curves space/time around the material body?

Gravitation has no apparent electromagnetic ties, not even if you are
wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans. It cannot be mediated by other
interactions because their quanta are massed and have finite range.

Annalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk

Dec9-04, 02:02 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Uncle Al Dec 7, 9:10 am\n\nAA Institute wrote:\n\n> I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I\'m sure it has been\n> discussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted\n> theoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates\n>from all known\n> material objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?\n\n>Gravitation is not "emitted." It is a consequence of spacetime\n>geometry. Black holes gravitate external to their event horizons.\n\nIt is not known whether or not "gravitation" is emitted.Many physicists\nthink that a particle called the graviton is emitted\nby masses.The space-time geometry could be the result of particles in\nspace reacting to the presence of a mass e.g le Sagian gravity.\n\n\n> Is it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces\n> which bind the material object together (from which gravity >emanates\nas a > surplus of net forces), or is it something more >fundamental\nwhich\n> somehow curves space/time around the material body?\n\n>Gravitation has no apparent electromagnetic ties...\n\nAlthough the fact that electromagnetism and gravity both\nobey inverse square laws for weak fields, is intriguing.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al Dec 7, 9:10 am

AA Institute wrote:

> I hope this is not too much of an old topic, as I'm sure it has been
> discussed before on this group, but what is the most accepted
> theoretical explanation about *why* the force of gravity emanates
>from all known
> material objects such as planets, stars, galaxies, etc.?

>Gravitation is not "emitted." It is a consequence of spacetime
>geometry. Black holes gravitate external to their event horizons.

It is not known whether or not "gravitation" is emitted.Many physicists
think that a particle called the graviton is emitted
by masses.The space-time geometry could be the result of particles in
space reacting to the presence of a mass e.g le Sagian gravity.

> Is it a surplus from the total atomic nuclear/inter-molecular forces
> which bind the material object together (from which gravity >emanates
as a > surplus of net forces), or is it something more >fundamental
which
> somehow curves space/time around the material body?

>Gravitation has no apparent electromagnetic ties...

Although the fact that electromagnetism and gravity both
obey inverse square laws for weak fields, is intriguing.

alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk

Dec14-04, 01:15 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>developed\ncertain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the\n"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,\nand who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever\non large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and\ntheir physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly\nto a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them\nrather than being the results of chance (or of God\'s will, or\nwhatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to\nremnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision\nand management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild).\nIn the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that\nneither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as\nwe know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through\ngenetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular\npoint, so that the m\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>developed
certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the
"bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,
and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever
on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and
their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly
to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them
rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or
whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to
remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision
and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild).
In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that
neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as
we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through
genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular
point, so that the m