What is Gravity?

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 4th, 2015, 9:53 pm

I am not so sure. Acceleration, to me, makes about as much "sense" as an "explanation" for gravity as does an energetic property of matter or air pressure.

Whether it means we are on a cosmic pizza dough flying faster and faster through the restaurant at the end of the universe is another matter. I am content simply imagining an exponentially expanding dimension as the explanation, without a need to belittle it.

I agree, however, that Flat Earth Society forum could easily be run by controlled opposition in order to trash or dumb down all sound arguments as quickly as possible.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Thinktwice on June 5th, 2015, 5:52 am

Yes that is indeed the simplest model of a mechanical "gravity force"... as I alluded to in my previous lengthy post, where I jokingly called it a "UN-flag-earth mounted on a rocket". This model's biggest advantage is it really demonstrates a simple, mechanical explanation for gravity--something that Newtonian/relativistic science has never provided. Other than that, it's hard to argue for this model...

I had the chance to take a commercial airline flight yesterday--and I couldn't help but keep this thread in mind as I rode. I had a few observations, which I'd like to summarize:

When the plane accelerates on the runway, there is a great force pushing my back to the seat behind me.

When the plane lifts off the ground and is rapidly rising, there is a large force that appears to smash my body down into the seat below me. When I try to lift my leg (my best experimental test at the time), it is very much harder to lift my leg than normal.

When the plane gets higher up, but is still rising, the gravity seems to balance out back to normal. Once at cruising altitude, gravity is seemingly normal.

When we hit a bump in air turbulence, gravity's apparent effect can fluctuate between greater-than-normal, and weaker-than-normal.

When the plane tilts downward as it begins to descend, you feel a moment of "weightlessness" as the seat fails to push on your body. When the plane is descending quickly, it becomes very much easier to lift my leg--it almost floats up by itself, it is so easy.

When the plane is in a sharp, banking turn, so that I am looking directly at the ground through the window--so apparently something between 45-90 degrees rotated relative to the ground - gravity seemed to push straight down into my seat--i.e. straight down, perpendicular to the wings. I picked up one of the safety pamphlets and dropped it a few times, as we were banking. It fell straight to my lap every time--not towards the ground, which was directly sideways outside the window.

OK, so from what I experienced on this flight, it seems clear that the "vomit comet" type anti-gravity plane would work in principle -- that, as the plane ascends, its floor pushes against anything inside the plane, and hence the objects experience a "gravity force" from the floor-- and that, as the plane descends, the floor literally drops out, so that the objects experience a weakened or absent "gravity force".

The plane is pushing against the AIR. This itself does suggest that air has something to do with gravity!

However, I would like to run a thought experiment. Let's say the back of the plane was completely opened to the air. Would that change my experiences at all? I do not think so! Even if the pressure in the plane were ambient pressure or even 0 psi, I would still experience forces from the floor of the plane as it rises or falls. Therefore, I do not buy the argument that we experience gravity on planes simply due to the pressurized chamber.

Another simple thought experiment is this. Say you have a very small room or closet, with just a door and no windows, and you walk inside and close the door very tightly. There is a certain amount of air inside the room with you, including a little bit of air above your head. Now, you take a coin out of your pocket, hold it out, and release it. The coin will fall to the ground, of course. But there is only a tiny amount of air actually weighing down upon it. The air in the atmosphere above us is not connected to us in any way--we are sealed off. Therefore, the air pressure above us cannot be weighing us down, when we are in this room. Or is the "atmospheric pressure" in the room enough to create the gravity effect?

Let's leave the room, now we are standing in a hallway. There are windows on each end, so that the wind is blowing through the hallway. Now, we take out our coin, release it. It falls directly to the ground again. If there is any air movement or air flow in this room at all, it is certainly horizontal. But the horizontal movement of the coin will be negligible, while we all know that the coin will fall directly to the ground. So again, it can't be the air above it, it can't be the air moving sideways--what is making the coin fall?

The main question is, if air pressure creates the force of gravity, then why is gravity always "DOWN"? And what makes the air want to move down, so that it pushes so hard?
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby anonjedi2 on June 5th, 2015, 6:44 am

The weight and mass of the object make it fall down. Since the object's weight and mass will be greater than any air molecules around it, it'll go through the air until it hits an object (the ground, a wooden table, etc) with greater mass. This is why we know that aluminum airplanes can't penetrate steel and concrete towers. Gravity, as far as I understand it is just another one of pscience's magical invisible forces designed to be complex enough to explain away a number of things that we observe for ourselves.

For example:

How is it possible for a human being standing in Australia to not fall off the spherical Earth? Gravity.

How does all the water stay on all sides of the sphere? Gravity.

How does the moon stay fixed in orbit around the Earth? Gravity of course!

Gravity and Relativity are the answers to many of the questions they field that they can't explain. They just chalk it up to good ole' gravity or relativity or any other number of magical, invisible forces, knowing full well that nobody can verify it for themselves and that the majority of people will believe it without a moment's hesitation.

Also, remember that we are told that this magical force of gravity is applied to any spacecraft in orbit around the Earth, but it's somehow not strong enough to pull the craft back down into the atmosphere. In other words (as seen in the Gemini 4 spacewalk), a spacecraft can just "hover" right outside of the atmosphere without falling back down to Earth. I mentioned it in another thread but how is it that gravity can suck something towards the Earth but then stop just shy of the imaginary line where the vacuum stops and the atmosphere begins? To me, none of this makes any sense at all.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 717
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 5th, 2015, 7:53 pm

Gravity as NASA explains it doesn't make sense. They would say there are no significant fluctuations at orbit distances, but 90% of the force still present in deep space. Whaaa!?

So the necessarily wavy behavior of gravity "smooths" to a perfect oval as the Earth hurtles through the solar system, colliding with Musk-knows-what space debris and radiation, and these miraculously sturdy satellites and ships are not affected by any of it — not the fluctuations in gravity, not debris, not radiation, not the Moon (which is said to be moving entire tides by the way) and not each other?

And they "mostly" require no course corrections? And when course corrections are admitted to be necessary, a little air spritzer jet of gas, escaping the satellite with no work being done on the object releasing the gas into the massive void of space, is supposed to be all that's needed to move the object more effectively than physical meteorites, collisions, waves of radiation, fluctuations in gravity above the massive object of the planet, the Moon, the Sun, etc.

No.

It's nonsense. Malarkey. Horse palaver. I don't care who you work for, how much money you oversee or how hard you've thought about paychecks for your tin-foil, plastic wheel bedecked, circuit board of gyros, micro-engines, chips and solar panels; we are not capable of sending physical contraptions like this to a magic realm where physics suddenly stop applying.

I think Simon is closer to the truth; some rotation of something (Earth? Star field? Light from the stars, twisting into our dimension?) occurs. But not the way they claim. And homemade model kit sa-TallTale-lites do not enter the equation of what "Gravity" is. We'd be better off studying actual objects here on Earth, or barring that the behaviors of heavenly objects: Moon, Sun, stars, planets, NEOs.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby simonshack on June 5th, 2015, 11:46 pm

*

I am really enjoying & appreciating the various contributions to this thread - yet I suggest that, due to the undeniable, almost mind-numbing complexity of the subject (and to the sheer 'weight' of hundreds of years of conditioning by official psyence), we all try to avoid (so as not to distract our thought processes) even mentioning any "NEWTON-and-NASA-type-information". NASA is a shameless fraud - period. NEWTON never explained /nor proved the idea of "gravity" - period.

Also, before we tackle the concept of "gravity" (an obscure, almost "magickal" term coined by an overly-hailed alchemist who saw an apple fall to the ground) - and try to somehow 'explain it to ourselves', shouldn't we first - more humbly and rationally - try and define some more basic / mundane things which we ALL have direct / firsthand / empirical experience of - here on Mother Earth - such as : air / water / pressure / weight / mass / volume / density / heat / buoyancy ? Hey, perhaps we should re-name this thread:

WHAT IS BUOYANCY?

Well, let me just have a brief go at it. Here's a few things we know about buoyancy: a TITANIC-size megaton ship will neatly float on top of the water surface - and will NOT be falling down towards the center of the Earth. This is because the air volume it contains keeps it afloat. A hot-air (or helium / hydrogen-filled) 500kg balloon full of fat people will neatly take off and soar up, up, in the skies - regardless of 'gravity'. As it reaches a certain altitude, it will stop ascending - due to the density of the molecules in the balloon equalizing with the surrounding atmosphere.

On the strenght of only these two examples, we may rightly say that "gravity" is NOT an absolute force which affects ALL things on this Earth equally. Here's what our 'favorite' online encyclopedia has to say about buoyancy:

BUOYANCY OF AIR:
"Similar to objects at the bottom of its ocean of water looking upward at objects floating above it, humans live at the bottom of an "ocean" of air and look upward at balloons drifting above us. A balloon is suspended in air, and a jellyfish is suspended in water for the same reason: each is buoyed upward by a force equal to the weight of fluid that would occupy its volume; when that buoyant force equals its own weight, it neither rises nor falls. In one case, the displaced fluid is air; and in the other case, the fluid is water. Objects in water are buoyed up because the pressure acting up against the bottom of the object exceeds the pressure acting down against the top. Likewise, air pressure acting up against an object in air is greater than the pressure above pushing down. The buoyancy, in both cases, is equal to the weight of fluid displaced - Archimedes' principle holds for air just as it does for water."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy


So, I think Archimedes was probably onto something... 'Weight', as it turns out, is an abstract concept which is entirely determined by the surrounding system/ atmosphere / density in which ANY object finds itself in. There really isn't any absolute definition of 'weight' - hence - there is no absolute definition of any 'downward-pulling-force' such as "gravity".

Now, what exactly is "air / atmospheric pressure"? Well, as Torricelli found out (as he invented the barometer) it is the force of the air above us affecting ALL earthly objects - such as you and me. As it is, not even that (in)famous Galileo genius had figured out this obvious fact at the time! Again, from our 'favorite' encyclopedia:

"It was traditionally thought (especially by the Aristotelians) that the air did not have lateral weight: that is, that the kilometers of air above the surface did not exert any weight on the bodies below it. Even Galileo had accepted the weightlessness of air as a simple truth. Torricelli questioned that assumption, and instead proposed that air had weight and that it was the latter (not the attracting force of the vacuum) which held (or rather, pushed) up the column of water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometer


I will stop here for now - although I have a fair amount of other 'gravity thoughts' to share with you all.
That will be for another day.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Pilgrim on June 5th, 2015, 11:47 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:I agree, however, that Flat Earth Society forum could easily be run by controlled opposition in order to trash or dumb down all sound arguments as quickly as possible.

As the vast majority don't give a fig about rational argument and sound logic and that it's not even necessary for them to do so to go ahead with their agenda, it seems a moot point. If we agree that 90% plus of the population are brainwashed anyway and they are only muddying the waters for the 10% minus, it makes little difference to capturing and "honey potting" those against it and keeping this minority into infighting and misinformation. We can shoot all the sound arguments we like at these people from a position of a perceived no affiliation be we an atheist scientist ( though everyone of us has an affiliation to their own worldview) or a so called rational free thinker in our minds. They don't seem to care and go ahead anyway no matter how irrational and inductive and fallacious the reasoning they rely upon.
They control the media and thus most peoples minds. Seems to me they don't even need to rubbish opposition by association with groups like the Flat Earthers as they control the media anyway and the vast majority don't need the false association to not take sound logical and evidence against the MSM and pseudo science seriously anyway, it's already too late for them unless they wake up.

Seems they focus on us few non believers for other reasons by muddying the waters.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 6th, 2015, 3:32 am

Pilgrim wrote:Seems they focus on us few non believers for other reasons by muddying the waters.


Are you sure you meant this, or did you mean "other reasons than muddying the waters?" I'm having a hard time reading your point.

Simon, if your theory is true, then acceleration downward at 9.8 meters/second per second would be reversible for objects lighter than the atmosphere, no? So for lighter-than-air objects (provided they are light enough) seeking their balance upwards can we observe something accelerating even close to 9 m/s/s? Half of that? Seems unlikely, so I have some doubt about this so far ... but still interesting.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby arc300 on June 6th, 2015, 10:03 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Gravity as NASA explains it doesn't make sense. They would say there are no significant fluctuations at orbit distances, but 90% of the force still present in deep space. Whaaa!?

So the necessarily wavy behavior of gravity "smooths" to a perfect oval as the Earth hurtles through the solar system, colliding with Musk-knows-what space debris and radiation, and these miraculously sturdy satellites and ships are not affected by any of it — not the fluctuations in gravity, not debris, not radiation, not the Moon (which is said to be moving entire tides by the way) and not each other?

And they "mostly" require no course corrections? And when course corrections are admitted to be necessary, a little air spritzer jet of gas, escaping the satellite with no work being done on the object releasing the gas into the massive void of space, is supposed to be all that's needed to move the object more effectively than physical meteorites, collisions, waves of radiation, fluctuations in gravity above the massive object of the planet, the Moon, the Sun, etc.

No.

It's nonsense. Malarkey. Horse palaver. I don't care who you work for, how much money you oversee or how hard you've thought about paychecks for your tin-foil, plastic wheel bedecked, circuit board of gyros, micro-engines, chips and solar panels; we are not capable of sending physical contraptions like this to a magic realm where physics suddenly stop applying.

I think Simon is closer to the truth; some rotation of something (Earth? Star field? Light from the stars, twisting into our dimension?) occurs. But not the way they claim. And homemade model kit sa-TallTale-lites do not enter the equation of what "Gravity" is. We'd be better off studying actual objects here on Earth, or barring that the behaviors of heavenly objects: Moon, Sun, stars, planets, NEOs.


You mention various forces that might interfere with the trajectory of a spacecraft - physical meteoroids (a meteorite is a meteoroid that hits the earth and a meteor is a meteoroid burning as it passes through the earth's atmosphere) radiation, gravity, etc.

They are all external forces.

But what about the internal forces that a spacecraft is allegedly subject to? Surely, ass-tro-naughts themselves must affect the trajectory of the craft every time they move because, weightless or not, they are applying force to the craft. We have all seen videos of intrepid space explorers clowning and goofing for the camera that never lies; we have seen them using exercise machines, pulling themselves along on hand-rails and bouncing off the walls. How can this NOT play havoc with the craft's trajectory? Those little course correcting air spritzers must be CONSTANTLY jetting gas into the infinite vacuum of space.

On this page (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/690/how-does-astronaut-activity-from-within-affect-a-spacecraft), these internal forces are all neatly explained away as being insignificant, or as cancelling each other out: the force applied to a wall by pushing off from it is cancelled out by the force applied to the opposite wall when you hit it, etc, etc.

The page contains a link to this video:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doN4t5NKW

At 4.06, Space Station Commander, Sunita Williams explains why the exercise machines are not bolted firmly to the walls of the craft:

"You'll probably see that the bike bounces around a little bit. As I move it, it's not steady and held to the wall firmly. The reason for that is the space station is pretty big; you saw that there's also solar arrays on the space station. If we start putting any forces into the space station, it's going to make those solar arrays bounce around a little bit. So to prevent that, the machines bounce around a little bit and move around a little bit. That way, we don't put any forces on to the structure of the space craft out to the solar arrays."

So, the only reason that you want to avoid 'putting forces into the space station' is because you don't want the solar arrays to 'bounce around a little bit'? And wouldn't every movement of every object within the craft be constantly causing the solar arrays to wobble and bounce. Wouldn't large solar arrays be the last things you'd want dangling off your spacecraft, what with all the wobbling and the bouncing? Oh, that's right, the air spritzers make up for it.

At around the 7.00 mark, we are shown the hatch where the space men and women "actually go outside, into the vacuum of space". Now I'm thinking, leaving the space craft necessarily means reducing its mass. And clambering (or, perhaps more accurately, scuba diving) around the outside of the craft and hammering away at all its various appendages must necessarily mean applying external forces to the craft, not to mention causing the solar arrays to bounce and wobble. But, you know, those trusty old air spritzers again, right?

That's enough. Sorry for going a bit off topic, and sorry for posting a video that has probably already been posted in another thread, but I just couldn't help myself. When 'space' is the topic, the concepts of gravity and mass and weight all seem to lose their meaning and blend into one rather gluggy soup. I get the impression that they are trying to tell us that weight is more important than mass and, as long as everything is weightless, you can just spritz a bit of air into space and everything will be OK.
arc300
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: April 27th, 2012, 11:13 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby simonshack on June 6th, 2015, 11:17 am

*
Hoi,

regarding this earlier question of yours :

"If we are talking "gravity is air pressure", are we suggesting that climbing a tall mountain should make us feel lighter or heavier?"

Here's what scientific officialdom explains why we will be (mostly) lighter at altitude (yet also a tiny bit heavier - due to reduced buoyancy):

"Gravity decreases with altitude as one rises above the Earth's surface because greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's centre. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%. (An additional factor affecting apparent weight is the decrease in air density at altitude, which lessens an object's buoyancy. This would increase a person's apparent weight at an altitude of 9,000 metres by about 0.08%)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth


Then again, scientific officialdom tells us that, if we could dig a hole all the way to the center of Earth, we'd weigh zero down there...

At the centre of the Earth
"So, what would happen to gravitational pull if you travelled below that the Earth's surface towards the centre? Would your weight in Newtons increase, along with the sensation of getting heavier?

No, quite the opposite, says Bell. As you go down below the Earth's surface, in a mine shaft for example, the force of gravity lessens. Weight and gravitational pull continue to decrease as you get closer to the centre of the Earth.

"Imagine you're standing on a series of balls getting smaller and smaller and smaller. With each one less gravitational force applies," she says.

"If you're right in the centre, if that were possible, and you've got the Earth surrounding you, then you're being pulled equally in all directions and the net effect is that they cancel out. There's no gravitational pull and you'd be weightless".

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 636714.htm


You may also wish to read this short clarifying post by "ZapperZ", regarding "Speed Of Gravity Is 9.8 m/s^2":
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it ... 8-ms2.html

As for your question "can we observe something accelerating even close to 9 m/s/s upwards?" Well, do we know how fast helium / hydrogen / hot air (unattached to a balloon) - or even an escaping volume of vacuum will ascend through the atmosphere ? I have found no information about that so far, but I'd think that they'd all rise pretty speedily indeed. What we DO know, is that air (our atmosphere) 'repels' a vacuum (and vice versa) - and this, with quite tremendous forces :

"HORROR VACUI - Nature abhors a vacuum" (Aristotle): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_%28physics%29


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N17tEW_WEU

Note the brief upwards-jolt of that tank - as air and vacuum "equalize" each other :
Image


**********
By the way - ever heard of monsieur Arthur De Bausset and his wondrous VACUUM AIRSHIP project ?

Image

I think you'd enjoy this fascinating read: :)
https://archive.org/details/aerialnavigatio00chicgoog
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 6th, 2015, 9:17 pm

Your response is detailed and deserves a counter-response.

However, I think it is too simplistic to say the tank bounces "up". It's certainly not going to bounce "down" through the ground. I feel happy to dismiss the idea that the structure of the tank determines the direction of this bounce less than you imply. The rest of your points require more thinking and patient reading, though, and I promise I will do just that when I can.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Pilgrim on June 7th, 2015, 12:47 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
Pilgrim wrote:Seems they focus on us few non believers for other reasons by muddying the waters.


Are you sure you meant this, or did you mean "other reasons than muddying the waters?" I'm having a hard time reading your point.

Yes, you can add "than" to my statement as they do indeed muddy the waters. The question is as to why? My reply was based upon your response that the opposition or perhaps any opposition (in this case the flat earth society) could be used to trash and dumb down any opposition by association with so called nutters or conspiracy theorists. I agree it could but it does not seem necessary to capture the hearts and minds of the already brainwashed masses that already believe in this BS and is no hinder to their agenda anyway. In which case they are spending a lot of time, money and effort into trying to muddy the waters for a small minority of non believers in main stream science. Which they do.
As i said, they don't seem to care about rational argument or logic anyway as they have already won the war for most people's worldview in line with their agenda so they are muddying the waters for reasons other than that.
My own view is these satanic rascals have as little knowledge to ultimate reality as your average Joe but are very clever at deception and have all the power and they keep the minority who don't accept their BS infighting as a distraction.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Undoctored on June 7th, 2015, 2:02 am

I think NASA could easily, with its billions of dollars, perform an experiment that would decide between the Newtonian and Simonian theories of gravity.

Something along the lines of:

  1. Drop a coin into an empty glass jar
  2. Put a lid on the jar and seal it tight so no air can exit or enter
  3. Slowly turn the jar upside-down

The Newtonian theory predicts that the coin will fall down because “gravity” would “pull” the coin towards the “center” of “planet” Earth.

The Simonian theory predicts that the coin will remain in place at the base of the jar because the pressure of the air pushing on the coin within the jar has remained unchanged since the jar was sealed.

What would happen in reality? We may never find out. If NASA, the ESA, or any other entity with the means to do this ever performed such an experiment, the true results would never be published if they cast doubt on the Newtownian theory, such is the atmosphere of scientific obstructionism we now face. :P
Undoctored
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: March 31st, 2015, 6:27 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on June 7th, 2015, 3:23 am

Bravo, Undoctored. I think that argument soundly argues against the idea of gravity being solely the work of pressure.

We are back to the "simple" but complex notion that gravity is more akin to an energetic force regardless of pressure, unless we want to explain how pressure always transfers itself to the top of an enclosed system. :P

I still think the Tamarack Mine experiment, if legit, and repeated, would tell us a great deal about gravity's true direction.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Flabbergasted on June 7th, 2015, 4:04 am

This post is perhaps a digression rather than a contribution to the thread, but I hope it is not of the boring type.

I have been reading the posts about gravity and air pressure with interest, but I don´t think the idea has any explanatory potential. Like everything else in the physical continuum, pressurized air is not an absolute and independent agent. Pressure (and all the other behaviors attributed to air) is the result of a force or principle, whether we have a name for it or not. If air pressure causes something, it is in an entirely secondary mode. The ultimate cause of a physical phenomenon (in this case, objects being necessarily pulled downwards) cannot be of the same nature as, i.e. coextensive with, the phenomenon it is responsible for.

Despite its partially Aristotelian foundation, modern science is not rooted in metaphysical principles. As such, it is applicable to certain local scenarios of a pragmatic nature but it sheds no light on the fundamental questions regarding the nature of matter, space, time, consciousness, gravity, energy, life and so forth.

In contrast, traditional sciences, which are now all but extinct, were in fact generally rooted in such principles, despite their cultural, artisanal or mythological forms of expression. By providing legitimate analogies and correspondences between the sensible world and the immaterial world, they allowed man to transcend the realm of physical nature and, very importantly, that of his craft.

Modern science cannot explain gravity because it is helplessly imprisoned in the relative, so all attempts to "find the truth that NASA is hiding from us" by using the tools of modern science are ultimately bound to fail.

Perhaps gravity and weight are better understood by reference to what the Vedas call the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas).

The three gunas are essential, constitutive and primordial qualities or attributes of beings envisaged in their different states of manifestation. They are not states, but general conditions to which beings are subject, by which they are bound, as it were, and in which they participate in indefinitely varying proportions, with the result that they are distributed hierarchically throughout the entire range of the "three worlds" (Tribhuvana), that is, throughout all the degrees of universal Existence.
Source: R. Guénon, Symbolism of the Cross, p. 23.

In its ordinary, literal sense, the word guna means "cord"; similarly, the terms bandha and pasha, which properly mean "bond", are applied to all the particular and limiting conditions of existence (upadhis) that more specially define this or that state or mode of manifestation. It should however be stated that the term guna is applied more particularly to a bowstring; it would thus express, at least in a certain respect, the idea of "tension" at different degrees and, hence, by analogy, that of "qualification"; but perhaps it is not so much the idea of "tension" that is appropriate here as that of "tendency", which indeed is akin to it as the words themselves show, and which is the idea that most closely answers to the definition of the three gunas.
Source: footnote from the same page.


The three gunas may be pictured as the two poles of a sphere, with a lateral expansion resulting from their tension:

Image
Caveat 1: The scheme is not an illustration of the physical universe or a planet, although one can certainly draw many exciting analogies from it.
Caveat 2: There are many arbitrary illustrations of the three gunas on the internet. Please do not bring them to bear against this exposition.
Caveat 3: In this post, matter is used in the scholastic* sense, not as "understood" by modern science.

The poles sattva and tamas correspond to Purusha (quality, spirit, light, liberation) and Prakriti (quantity, matter, obscurity, compression). The three gunas are most often applied to the understanding of human nature, but they are clearly also reflected in the order of the physical world, including all natural cycles and pulsations. In addition, from the anthropological standpoint, one could make the correspondence: sattva=heaven, rajas=earth, tamas=hell.

When seen in this light, "the earth" may indeed be said to be flat and horizontal.

edit: I changed "Aristotelian" to "scholastic" for the sake of clarity, keeping in mind the formula materia signata quantitate.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 722
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Thinktwice on June 15th, 2015, 11:47 pm

Thanks Flabbergasted, I did enjoy your thoughtful post. Those three principles certainly align with other similar principles, i.e. Yin/yang, fire/water in alchemical language, etc, as these similar creation principles operate on all levels, creating and feeding in this growing fractal-like universe--as above, so below.

A few thoughts about airplane lift in light of this gravity discussion.

Air is a fluid. There are clear similarities between the oceans of water and the mass of air in the atmosphere. And I do think it is an interesting question: why do airplanes stay afloat? If you watch a commercial jet take off, it almost looks effortless. Once afloat, the plane almost seems to hover magically. Clearly there is a lot of air mass keeping the airplane floating. It reminds one quite a lot of a boat or submarine floating through water. And of course, since this is a fluid, that makes sense. Air is just a lot less dense than water.

Ok, so let's take the simplest plane, the propeller biplane of WWI fame. It's basically like a fan that pulls the wooden carriage through the air, with the wings slicing through the air. The wings have air pushing on them from both the bottom, and the top, as the wings slice the air. I would honestly expect the forces due to air from above and below to be equal, at least at the local level.

What holds a boat up in water? It is said in basic discussions of buoyancy / Archimedes principle that the boat is lighter than the water that it displaces. Could we bring that concept over to the airplane?

Once the aircraft is moving fast enough, it is displacing quite a lot of air. Its wings are carving a horizontal slice through the air, making contact with a large number of air molecules, both on the bottom and top. Once the light (mostly hollow) plane is moving fast enough, could it be that the weight of the air displaced by the plane every moment is greater than the weight of the plane itself? And therefore, could the plane experience a buoyancy effect, just like a boat in water?

Hoi asked earlier about a helicopter, which can hover without moving horizontally. The helicopter blades themselves are acting like a huge fan, displacing a large amount of air. Even if the helicopter is not moving relative to the earth, it is still displacing air and therefore is lighter than the air displaced--i.e. it floats. (Here is a question--would a helicopter work upside-down? Would it work the same if you reverse the spin of the rotors? Does it have to be pushing air down, pushing air up, or neither one?)

Could this be a simple mechanical explanation for airplane lift? Simon even mentioned that race cars create lift when driving quickly enough, and that with no wings. So when the car displaces a huge amount of air (since it is going so fast), it starts to float a bit, due to buoyancy. I hope this basic concept was clear--I had a bit of a eureka moment after playing a flight simulator. The plane simply goes where the nose is pointing--so if the nose is pointing up, it goes up, etc.

For problems with the official lift theory, Miles Mathis points out plenty in his paper on lift. Basically, they pretend that the wing is always angled up, when that is clearly not the case. I don't favor his explanation for lift, though--mine is much different.
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest