How Come Gravity Doesn't Give A Hoot About Weight?

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Hervé (here)
The Einstein quote is only there to point to a source of misconceptions having to do with "Reference Systems"

The walls of that tower are fixed to an Earth frame of reference hence the apparency of feathers and ball sliding along that wall toward Earth.

However, were that wall independent from both ball/feathers and Earth and one could detect the imperceptible motion of both sets of objects toward each other (infinitesimal for Earth) as pointed out by araucaria in an above post.

What's undeniable is that there is motion occurring

From a subatomic perspective, what we call motion is a fascinating and different subject in itself ...

[Hervé]

[QUOTE=Operator;898984]

Posted by araucaria (here)
[...]
Somehow electricity, magnetism and gravity seem to be related.

I don't have a reference either.

One way of looking at it is that all three are "fields" and therefore HAVE to share something in common to belong to the "field" category.

[Operator]

Posted by Aragorn (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
The component of earth's gravitation still causes the ball to accelerate with 10m/s2 toward earth.

Minor nitpick, but it's 9.8 m/s².

Yes sure, I should have said +/- 10 m/s² (which is easier to remember for most people)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
---
From a subatomic perspective, what we call motion is a fascinating and different subject in itself ...

Well motion seems to be very much involved in the interrelation of these 3 fields.
You can't generate electricity in a wire by a magnet unless you fluctuate the magnetic field often produced by
motion of the magnet and/or motion of the wire(s)/coils ...

It was Boyd Bushman who explained to David Sereda that 2 magnets forced together influenced the gravitational
acceleration (or force whatever part of that equation assuming mass is pretty much defined).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hNPBYtJyfZo

He also showed how a magnet was slowed down falling through a copper tube and that aluminum was of influence
on gravity (might that be the reason for aluminum in chemtrails?).

[amor]

He certainly was in a position to be certain about the existence of UFO's, being a high government official in Canada. I have always been as sure as day that someone or something was flying these antigravity craft; and with my ear always to the ground, knew the government had the secret of space flight since the 1950's when they snubbed Mr. Brown who had come up with it also. As for Aliens, You-tube is full of stories of Reptilians, etc., as the co-hosts of human military on all these UFO's. Back to the days of the Black Plague, these things were seen in the sky sprinkling plague dust on the population of Europe to keep us roaches down!

I will tell you how I believe anti-gravity works as a result of how the zero fields works to create matter, resultant of ever spiralling countervailing forces meeting at "flower of life" angular directions, the confluence of which we finally experience as matter. The push/pull of these ever spiralling forces is what we experience as Gravity.

Two large bodies like the earth and sun have gravity of the sun pulling on the matter of the earth (Einstein called it a Gravity Well). I, however, view it as straight lines projecting from the centre of the sun. The shortest of these lines gets to the earth first and pulls the earth toward the centre of the sun (taking approx. 8 minutes). By the time this force touches the earth to act on it, the centre of the sun from which it emanated has moved downward along its spiral path and so the earth is taking a direction to the centre of the sun after the sun's centre has departed that location. If you continue this observation, you will note that the earth described an elliptical spiral orbit around the sun which is in fact describing a spiral path downward also. Now if you have a Craft which moves off the ground at a 45 degree angle fast enough to move ahead of this change of angular pull of the sun on the earth, the Craft will lift off the planet. One way to effect this is as the Ancient East Indians did employing mercury in their engines. I am no chemist and believe that Mercury will quickly seek the centre of gravity of the engine, which ejects its forces, whether chemical or electromagnetic, at 45 degrees to the direction in which the Mercury is pointing. This will direct the forces of the Craft off the earth until it is out of the Arc of Earth's Orb and Path. Its flight can then arc away from the Sun's forces: from earth, to solar, to galactic and inter-galactic space. Since the celestial bodies are said to be moving at such super speeds, the Craft by directing its movements can subtract each small subspace speed and eventually end by travelling at galactic speeds. In this way, you are USING the forces of the Universe instead of FIGHTING them to travel. In effect, you are letting the earth, sun, solar system, and galaxy, peel away from YOU.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Operator (here)

Posted by Aragorn (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
The component of earth's gravitation still causes the ball to accelerate with 10m/s2 toward earth.

Minor nitpick, but it's 9.8 m/s².

Yes sure, I should have said +/- 10 m/s² (which is easier to remember for most people)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
---
From a subatomic perspective, what we call motion is a fascinating and different subject in itself ...

Well motion seems to be very much involved in the interrelation of these 3 fields.
You can't generate electricity in a wire by a magnet unless you fluctuate the magnetic field often produced by
motion of the magnet and/or motion of the wire(s)/coils ...

It was Boyd Bushman who explained to David Sereda that 2 magnets forced together influenced the gravitational
acceleration (or force whatever part of that equation assuming mass is pretty much defined).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hNPBYtJyfZo

He also showed how a magnet was slowed down falling through a copper tube and that aluminum was of influence
on gravity (might that be the reason for aluminum in chemtrails?).

I was referring more to the fact that subatomic particles oscillate between existence and "non-existence" at extremely high frequencies. All change seems to occur not in with what we call "existence" but within rather the timeframe of "non-existence" where the particles appear to have relocated upon their newly renewed "existence".

Like the Nagual - the potential that always exists, or something like a light bright (Lite Brite™) where the light that brings the pegs into proper "existence" is always there and constant. but hidden behind the dark paper, it is not revealed until a peg is placed. The light in this sense is the "Nagual" or the potential, and the peg allows it to be brought forth. Perhaps a bad metaphor but it was what came to mind.

A topic for another thread perhaps ...

[wnlight]

I enjoyed the demo, Hervé. Very nice.

I think it has been discussed fairly well that the falling velocities of the two different objects will be the same unless other forces are at work such as air resistance or magnetism. (Spinning magnets certainly do add another force to the equation.)

Classic Neuronal physics states that the Earth moved part way up to meet the ball, but in this case the Earth's participation would likely be too small to measure. Actually, when the ball was raised before the drop, the Earth was pushed down by the same minuscule amount.

That crack at the end of the video about Einstein's space-time theory and the ball did not accelerate towards the floor at all is very misleading. It looked to me that the ball was raised about thirty feet above the floor. Then it was allowed to drop the same distance. OK, experts. Tell me that if the ball did not accelerate , then did it move? If the ball did not really move at all while the height of the ball decreased from about thirty feet to zero feet in a few seconds, then what happened? In Einstein's logic, you can place a frame of reference anywhere in order to study an event. In the demo, the frame of reference is tied to the Earth. The cameras were all fixed in position in reference to the Earth. We saw the ball accelerate toward the floor and strike the floor. Please explain that event without any real acceleration. It was implied that if there were no walls to see the ball's movement, then maybe it wasn't really accelerating. I say just stand under the ball and when it hits, you will be able to tell that the ball had, indeed, accelerated in reference to your head. Any experts out there?

[joeecho]

Excellent!

The reason the bowling ball and the feather fall together is because they are not falling. They are standing still. There is no force acting on them at all.

He reasoned that if you couldn't see the background there would be no way of knowing that the ball and the feathers were being accelerated towards the earth.

So he concluded that they weren't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is only by reference that anything happens at all.

[Observer1964]

I think that 'weight' as such is a result of gravity on a mass that is blocked from moving toward the center of graviry.

If u take a mass of 1 kilogram weight, and take it to the Moon or Mars it would weigh less as the gravity is less, but the mass is still the same.

So the question;"How Come Gravity Doesn't Give A Hoot About Weight?" I would answer with; Becoz gravity is the cause of weight.

[Observer1964]

If in the test the air was replaced with a theoretical gas that has a bigger density than the feather, the feather would float, if the density would be bigger than the ball the ball would float. So the competition between the mass densities is what causes the objects to fall at different speeds.

[Observer1964]

Posted by joeecho (here)
Excellent!

The reason the bowling ball and the feather fall together is because they are not falling. They are standing still. There is no force acting on them at all.

I think that there is a force acting; 'gravity' but it is equalised by the resulting acceleration. Gravity and acceleration have the same unit and formula in math (distance x time x time) ( On earth that [gravity] is 9,81 m/s2 so the acceleration will be equal if unrestraned by friction with air )

He reasoned that if you couldn't see the background there would be no way of knowing that the ball and the feathers were being accelerated towards the earth.

So he concluded that they weren't.

Actually they are loading with kinetic energy until they reach point of impact whereby that energy is absorbed by the colliding masses, and you dont wanna be at that spot at that moment. I would say his observatiuon is wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is only by reference that anything happens at all.

Yes everything is in relative motion towards everything but sometimes that relative motion is nill and appears to be standing still but it isnt . for example Just sit in a car and drive it full speed against a tree and you will find that the relative motion between you and the earth and you and the car has a crushing potential.

[Operator]

Posted by Observer1964 (here)
I think that 'weight' as such is a result of gravity on a mass that is blocked from moving toward the center of graviry.

If u take a mass of 1 kilogram weight, and take it to the Moon or Mars it would weigh less as the gravity is less, but the mass is still the same.

So the question;"How Come Gravity Doesn't Give A Hoot About Weight?" I would answer with; Becoz gravity is the cause of weight.

Yep, that was my reasoning too in post #3.
Perhaps the real intended question was (or should be) is there a founded reason to assume that the gravity's acceleration is
dependent on mass of the object instead of constant independent of mass?

[TargeT]

Posted by Operator (here)
Perhaps the real intended question was (or should be) is there a founded reason to assume that the gravity's acceleration is
dependent on mass of the object instead of constant independent of mass?

except the "feather and the bowling ball" experiment shows that acceleration is independent of mass, so that question is answered?

[Operator]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
Perhaps the real intended question was (or should be) is there a founded reason to assume that the gravity's acceleration is
dependent on mass of the object instead of constant independent of mass?

except the "feather and the bowling ball" experiment shows that acceleration is independent of mass, so that question is answered?

I know we do our calculations with the constant of 9.8 m/s² so that's not the question for me ...
The underlying puzzling question is: "Why is it constant instead of being dependent on mass? To be expected or not?"

[Hervé]

Posted by Observer1964 (here)
[...]
... Becoz gravity is the cause of weight.

Indeed, however, it doesn't give a hoot about "mass" (quantity/amount of matter/substance in an object) either (hence, "density" as well)... so pushing it further to "no mass"... there is no force (weight) but... is there no acceleration/motion?

It's a "field" right? So, whether it interacts with something or not, does not eliminate its potential influence

[Operator]

I think that the answer on dependency on mass was already given by our brilliant fellow member araucaria in post #7.

It is of course constant and independent because it is caused by the mass of the earth ...
The whole experiment is a result of 2 opposite forces. But the gravity caused by feathers and bowling ball can be neglected
compared to that of earth.

Coming to understand this better ... would 2 bowling balls floating parallel in vacuum space eventually move
to each other? We would probably never notice because the acceleration is so tiny that it takes forever.

[Hervé]

Posted by Operator (here)
[...]
It is of course constant and independent because it is caused by the mass of the earth ...
[...]

That's the premise and assumption.

What if it's a field that collected/gathered its own "weight" worth of mass...

[T Smith]

Posted by kritter (here)
At the conclusion of the first video, the statement is made that Einstein thought the feathers and ball are not falling, they are actually standing still. The background is what gives us the illusion of them falling. Can anyone expound on this?

It's not accurate to imply there is no force. All three objects (earth, feather, the bowling ball) exert the same force, what we understand as gravity, measured per the mass of each object. The more massive an object, the greater this force (gravity) exerts on some relative object. Relative to the earth, the feather has less mass than the bowling ball, so it exerts much less force on the earth (or in this case, less resistance). In layman's terms, think of it this way: the bowling ball (being a much more massive object than the feather) is kicking and screaming on its way down, much more than the puny feather. In mathematical terms, the bowling ball is exerting more gravitational force on the earth. This serves to slow the bowling ball's fall down relative to the feather in exact proportion the lack of resistance from the feather speeds up its fall. Remember, the feather is hardly kicking and screaming at all... Mathematically, all these forces cancel each other out exactly, per mass, and each object "falls" at the same rate.

If you really want to wrap your mind around this, we would have to understand that the earth itself is also "falling" toward both the feather and the bowling ball, but at such an infinitesimal rate, due to its relative mass to the other objects, we can hardly measure it.

[Operator]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
[...]
It is of course constant and independent because it is caused by the mass of the earth ...
[...]

That's the premise and assumption.

What if it's a field that collected/gathered its own "weight" worth of mass...

Agreed ... it's just following the 'regular' physics. I know that the relation between mass and gravity is under
discussion too. I think that your observation about it being a field is interesting too. Because if you are able
to 'select' fields you have found the key to anti-gravity and propulsion to selected areas in space.

[Operator]

Posted by T Smith (here)
---
If you really want to wrap your mind around this, we would have to understand that the earth itself is also "falling" toward both the feather and the bowling ball, but at such an infinitesimal rate, due to its relative mass to the other objects, we can hardly measure it.

And ... now even add the complexity that the earth isn't flat but a sphere on which billions of these effects take place each second
in many directions. Does the total net result affect the course of the earth? or is it negligible ?

[araucaria]

Posted by Operator (here)
I think that the answer on dependency on mass was already given by our brilliant fellow member araucaria in post #7.

It is of course constant and independent because it is caused by the mass of the earth ...
The whole experiment is a result of 2 opposite forces. But the gravity caused by feathers and bowling ball can be neglected
compared to that of earth.

Coming to understand this better ... would 2 bowling balls floating parallel in vacuum space eventually move
to each other? We would probably never notice because the acceleration is so tiny that it takes forever.

:blush:
Einstein said the curvature of space around a planet or star was like a ball stretching a rubber sheet – which is not much help until we know what makes rubber behave differently from steel. Tom van Flandern’s explanation, based on Laplace, seems the best to me: tiny gravitons (possibly the stuff of the aether) usually pass through matter but are occasionally deviated. The mass of an object is proportional to its propensity to deviate gravitons – more particles to get in the way. Hence when two objects come together, they have so to speak a windward side and a lee side between them where slightly fewer gravitons can penetrate. In other words, gravity would seem to be a large-scale Casimir effect.

If we see the power of attraction as the ability to reduce the space between oneself and another, we see how this would also work in human terms as love. It is not by chance that the French word for a magnet is aimant, from the verb aimer, to love. This would be a dual give-and-take process of radiating out while protectively shielding and drawing in.