Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of gravity in relation to falling bodies, asserting that gravity does not play a role in the acceleration of a falling object, as demonstrated by Galileo. It highlights that while Newton and Einstein sought to explain this phenomenon through their theories, their explanations remain imperfect and insufficient for certain phenomena, such as the behavior of tides. The conversation suggests that there is no necessary connection between falling objects and Newton's law of gravity, advocating for a new theory of time-space. Additionally, it references Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, which notes the unexplained equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the need for further exploration beyond existing gravitational theories.
424319
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Is there gravity in the process of falling body?

The answer is not.

Galileo demonstrated that the acceleration of falling body is not concerned with mass, volume and chemical elements. This is Galileo phenomenon. Newton and Einstein attempted to use their theory, gravity law or general relativity to explain Galileo phenomenon, but it is not perfect. All physics know this.

All physics also know that many phenomena can not clarified by Newton’s gravity law. For example, Newton’s law of gravity can only perfectly explain why tides occur on the side nearest to it, but not on the other side.

In fact, there is not necessary relation between the phenomenon of falling object and Newton’s law of gravity.

We need a new time-space theory.

Reference: THING AND ITS LAW (ISBN 1-58939-525-5), chapter 2: timedistance and timecurvature (the active and passive motion of time-space) and chapter 5: natural force(the duality of time-space and energy)published by Virtualbookworm.com publishing Inc
 
Physics news on Phys.org
424319,

Einstein preceded your thought experiment by 97 years.

This discovery (November 1907) is known as the "happiest moment" of Einstein's endeavors to understand the simplicity of nature.

The outcome is the Principle of Equivalence of his general theory of relativity.

The equivalence is the inertial mass as that found in Newton's 2nd law of motion and the gravitational mass in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Until now nobody knows the reason why these masses should be equivalent. They are just found to be equivalent by Einstein. He did not gave any good explanation.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top