I know you are going to answer 'gravity', but it is just the name of the phenomenon. The question is how(the mechanism) objects fall to the ground? How earth attract objects, that is far away?
Are you expecting to discuss Newton ’s Law of Universal Gravitation, Einstein’s alternate theory of gravity; or one of the newer ones where they explain the phenomena through terms of particles and waves. The last I heard, the how and why to the cause of the phenomenon is still considered elusive. You pose the question as if you've found an answer.
Newton thought as you do, that objects 'attract' other objects, which is termed "action at a distance" but it wasn't really correct because he also had to assume the action was instantaneous. So, if the effect of gravity is like electromagnetic radiation, in that it travels at the speed of light, then it can't be instantaneous, which would mean objects do not attract one another.
OK, objects don't attract, then why the apple got to the ground, instead of going to the sky?
It didn't, the ground accelerated up towards the apple.
Naturally! I don't expect a natural explanation from a relativist, but only supernatural and magik.
Then, once again, you aren't interested in any answers. So, it's time to ignore you again.
That's the best thing you can do, when you have no answers!
"So, if the effect of gravity is like electromagnetic radiation, in that it travels at the speed of light, then it can't be instantaneous, which would mean objects do not attract one another"
So if it is like EM radiation like a particle or wave?
How two objects move towards each other if it is throwing particles at each other?(here, your assumption that gravity is not instantaneous will be true, but it will not cause attraction or movement towards each other, in fact it will cause object to move away from each other).
If it is like a wave, then an interconnected wave will not explain instantaneous action, nor attraction(waves only push, not pull). Also it need a medium for the wave to propagate, what is the medium? But if there is a medium and if it is the medium that is pulling it will explain both instantaneous action and attraction. Then, again, what is the medium?
This is one of the questions yet unanswered until the grand unified field theory is solved.
The others are electromagnetic attraction, and the weak and strong nuclear attraction.
Maybe some day this will be mathematically solved.
Physics 101. ALL objects that have mass contain gravity. It is the size of the earth (mass) that gives it its amount of gravity. Just like the gravity on the moon is less because its mass is less. That beach ball you play with has mass and gravity. It is a product of nature that no one can actually explain. Even Newton said I don't know what it is but only that it is there. (paraphrasing)
What is mass?
Newton couldn't answer- agreed, nobody answered- agreed, question is, can anybody answer?
Mass is a measurement of how much matter there is in a body.
In classical physics, mass is generally described as either inertial mass or gravitational mass, which for all common purposes, are the same. Inertial mass (which leads to momentum) is a measurement of a body's resistance to a change in velocity when an external force is applied to that body. Gravitational mass (which leads to weight) is the magnitude of a body's interaction with a known gravitational field.
It is how gravity works that no one knows.
OK, So it is the number of atoms in a given object. So when relativist say mass increased, is it the number of atoms that is increasing?
When a thing moves, what changes is the force required to change its velocity. Is this inertial mass and force the same thing?
Suppose, if it does not move, does the mass becomes zero?(f=ma)
Movement has nothing to do with it. Mass is like density. The point is all objects have gravity.
Now we can observationally explain gravity. It's properties are explained by fundamental phyical dynamics and yes physcial statics if we want to be technical.
The why's and how's are not explained.
The great guru on the mountain says....."It is what it is"
Now, there is not a person here who can exlain the mathematics or physical reason that explains gravity.
There is not a physcisist (At least a universally excepted) who can mathematically describe what it is.
With all due respect......Can you?
For me, I will use the 9.8 m/s^2 - drag forces on earth.
Now my hats off to anyone who can explain gravity (relativity and quantum mechanics) with string theory or partial differential equations. Because if this person can, we will be graced with a truely remarkable physicist.
Most certainly, I can't that is why I asked.
I read Bill Gaedes rope theory, and think it is a better explanation than, if not the correct, relativity and quantum. What do you say?
Bill Gaede has a pretty interesting take on physics. However, he is bit on philosophical side and appears to have an axe to grind.
I have read a small amount from people like Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg. I have also read a little on some string theories which appear to be similar to Bill's expansion of Maxwell's equation.
My knowledge, however, is just summary and I don't have a super solid knowledge but I like to delve.
Thanks for the interesting read. I will read a little more on
Assuming that fellow hubber billgaede is the same as Bill Gaede (and I find that to be a likely reality for obvious reasons), Mr. Gaede and I have discussed the question of what exactly constitutes "science" and what is posh, bigoted hocus-pocus via commenting on one of his hubs. As I recall, there was no really productive conclusion to that meeting of minds.
The hub in question is at http://hubpages.com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-10.
Hopefully, he won't mind, as anyone following the url to see for themselves will land him some hub traffic. We are all symbiotes, after all.
You might find interesting the following video:
If you're pressed for time or inclination, Richard Feynman (who won the Nobel Prize for his work basically inventing QED theory) talks about how his father taught him the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something. As an example, he refers to an early observation regarding inertia in which his father explained to him that the reason a ball rolls to the back of an accelerating wagon is called "inertia" but that nobody really knew WHY it happened.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the "relativists," as I think I've heard you call modern physicists. When I read on the subject, I don't see that physicists claim to be able to answer such questions. But, it doesn't mean that everything they do is invalid. Consider that astronomers went through many many iterations of a model of the orbits of heavenly bodies in the visible sky before Copernicus established his theory as being the most able to fit the observations. But it doesn't mean that Brahe or Kepler, both of whom submitted their own incorrect models, were not legitimate "scientists." Understand?
You have mistaken me. Did you see me say anything against Kepler, or even Aristotle? They tried to explain the nature as they saw it, with their limited resources. But what the modern physicists do is not that, they are 'inventing' their own reality. They spend the tax payers money in searching for things they themselves don't understand.
Yes, knowing the name of something and knowing something is different. All physics is the human quest to know something, how nature works. What is to be done is to explain nature. Theories should fit reality(as it is an explanation of reality) and not that reality should be fitted to a theory(which is what relativists are doing when they say concepts like time dilate, space expand and all). See, you can call "something" space and say it expand, but if you define space as nothing, the vast expanse that gives shape to objects, that which is limitless and boundless, that which is border-less, then nobody can say it expands, it will be self-refuting. So if you call something as space, then what is that background that which give shape to objects?
See there are two photos, if I say there is a circle in both photos will you agree? There need to be a different background to give shape to the circle. Similarly there needs to be an absence of everything, to give shape to the objects, to define the objects. That absence is called space. If that is called space how can it expand?
Now about getting nobel prizes, religion started as(one reason) as an explanation of nature, though it is illogical, then they became establishments. To protect the establishment they started giving prizes, like sainthood, to those who conformed. But did it further the cause of religion or the establishment?
Well, I think we might be mutually not understanding each other here, and it is partially my fault for assuming that I did have a fair idea of your thoughts. So, what will help me out to better understand your contention against the status quo of the establishment (because it is, undeniably, an establishment; just look at the Millikan oil drop experiment and the time it took for its incorrect conclusion to be corrected, even after many repetitions by other scientists who found it to be slightly off) will be if you can say a specific example of what you mean by "reality fitted to a theory." I'm a little confused as to how, in practice, this is really different from "theory fitted to reality."
Doesn't our "knowledge" of what is "real" or "true" necessarily have to be based from the theory before we can confirm or disprove it? That was my point with the astronomers - nobody had seen the planets and stars orbiting in their paths, they only had observations made from Earth to work with. So, they proposed a theory about how these things could possibly work based upon the information that was available to them. I'm having trouble distinguishing this from the way things are done today - so a specific example would be greatly helpful to me in understanding your position.
I'll try to put it as best as I can.
Reality is not based on anything, reality is what exists.(So we got matter/objects and space. Matter that has shape (and location), space that do not have shape) A theorem is an explanation of the relation of objects, so it should be rational.
Lets take your example, There are planets and the sun. That is a fact. Lets put the hypothesis all planets revolve around the sun. We are going to rationally explain why it revolve around the sun, that is the theory. (Remember, I already told you I've no explanation for that, how two objects physically unconnected exert influence on each other. In nature there can be nothing called magic and two objects can act only by physical contact, hence we have to assume they are somehow connected)
Now what do relativists/quantum mechanics say?(The common ones I state here)
1) There is something called space(which act like a funnel), which prevent the earth from going out.
2) There are particles called gravitons, which are thrown out by sun which carry negative momentum, causing the attraction.
In the first case you have to define what "space" is, as space is a crucial word here. If you define space as "nothing", that theory is totally irrational, as "nothing" cannot prevent anything. If you say space is a "thing", then it will have to be rationally explained, why we are not smashed between this thing and earth, as earth surface is in constant touch with this stuff.
In the second case, the problem is with momentum.
Momentum is supposed to be the product of mass and velocity. It is a vector possessing both magnitude and direction. Changing the magnitude or direction will not make it negative, it will always remain positive. Again bombarding with particles may very well explain push, but it can never explain pull.
So what we have is planets, sun and the planets revolving around the sun and a vast expanse between them. We have to make a theory(rational explanation) based on that. We cannot say space prevent and make a thing out of the expanse. That is why I said theorem should conform to reality.
Well, then I say that makes sense. This is how science should be approached, in my humble opinion. You studied some of the proposed theories about why the planets orbit the sun, and came up with counter-arguments against their validity - just as the old astronomers pointed out the flaws in their predecessors' theories in order to eliminate those that were certainly incorrect.
I had never heard the "funnel space" theory before (as I've mentioned in other topics, physics is not my profession) but I agree with you that it doesn't make very much sense as a working theory, if you've explained it accurately. And, I'll half-agree with you against the graviton theory. I disagree that negative momentum is the problem - perhaps it shouldn't be called "negative momentum," but obviously it is not out of the question to look at gravitation as "momentum in the opposite direction you would normally expect from a force expelled from an object" and so the term "negative momentum" is justifiable in a non-mathematically rigorous sense. However, I agree that saying "gravitons did it" is a non-statement unless evidence of an actual graviton is presented. Otherwise, they're just saying that gravitation is a result of particles presumed to exist on the evidence of gravity itself, which is kind of a major logical flaw.
Funnel or well it is called, but there again they have three different explanations, all logically impossible.
Graviton, my simple question is, if I throw stones at another object, it never comes closer, it always move away, by what ever method I throw it, so how the opposite can happen? How throwing particles cause pull instead of push?
But, as somebody said, There is only atoms and space, rest are all opinions!
Well, I would offer the following example from an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy that I still remember even to this day, because at the time it went against all of my expectations based upon my previous experiences.
The experiment goes like this: suspend two balls from a plank or something from a string so that they are hanging about a half inch apart. Then, blow air through a straw directly between them. I knew that, in my experience, air tends to push things away when blown at them even if it doesn't hit dead on center. So, naturally, I expected that the balls would be forced away from each other by the air flying between them. But! That's the opposite of what happens.
Now, I'm not suggesting that this is what happens with gravitons. I'm only offering this example of how one's previous experience can be totally misleading when it comes to natural phenomena. Therefore, I don't find it impossible that gravitons might induce an unexpected effect on objects around the sun - I just don't know of any actual evidence that they are a "particle" that exists. Maybe a fellow hubber could help me out there, since I don't often have time to devote to all the research topics I'd like.
There is a perfect reason for that. You are blowing the air not on to the ball, but between the balls, which reduce the pressure in between which cause the balls to come together. But gravitons are not explained like that. They are explaining it as negative momentum which is a contradiction.. Till now nobody has seen a graviton either.
Then there is stuff like chronon, particles of time, but nobody knows what time is!
What is light? Particle or wave? Young's slit experiment can only be explained by wave nature, but the mathematical sine wave doesn't exist in nature. In nature, a wave always need a medium, but they cannot say what the medium of light is.. On and on it goes.
Ah-ha! That is exactly my point, jomine. There IS a perfect reason for it - but it is only because we have the benefit of being able to see what the natural explanation of the phenomenon is that it doesn't seem contradictory to us anymore. But before anybody realized that "hey, the air pressure is reduced by blowing between these balls" it seemed to be totally against what experience had dictated to be the way that air moves objects.
Of course, this graviton malarky is not exactly like the example I used, but the same situation of having what you would expect based on your understanding of how things work turned upside down applies. I'm not saying at all that gravitons make sense to me, even. It seems totally against what we would expect. But, the difference we have is that I think there is the chance that this unexpected and seemingly-contradictory effect might be explained (just like the explanation was eventually found for the balls moving closer together) in a way that WILL make sense.
Now, until that happens, or until I see some acceptable demonstration of the actual existence of such a particle, I will not think it is complete. But, that doesn't mean that scientists should just not bother investigating the possibility. That's my opinion on it, anyhow.
There are some problems with particle theory.
1) As you said, this particle is not yet demonstrated, even after installing million dollar colliders
2) Particle movements may be prevented by shields, but till now there is no such shield is found.
3) Gravity is bidirectional, while particles can act only one way.
4) Gravity is instantaneous, while particles need time to travel.
5) lastly, even this particle is proposed to be 0D, that is non-existent.
Then the conceptual problem I always say, when an object physically come in contact with another, it imparts its motion to the other, which will always be in the direction of motion of the first, certainly not in the opposite.
The phenomenon you described is amply observed in nature, while motion imparted in the opposite direction is not.
These are all good counter-arguments to the graviton theory and I agree with you on this to the utmost degree.
Just out of curiosity, however, do you have a theory of your own about it? I haven't had the time to dedicate to such a problem, and so I really don't have any alternative explanations than what have already been proposed.
Additionally, I could discuss the relationship of mathematics to nature all day long, so we had probably save that discussion about the sine wave and the nature of light for another forum.
Unless you are looking for "God did it" there is no answer and never will be. The attraction between any two objects is how the universe is built.
A + and a - charge attract each other - why? Because they do. A north and south magnetic pole attract for the same reason. That these forces exist as a basic facet of nature and do what they do is a result of the laws created in the big bang.
We continue to learn ever more about how these forces act and interact. We understand more about what is required for them to come into existence (iron molecules, for instance, "line up" in the presence of a magnetic field). We will never understand that absolute root of the "why"s as the only answer is "because". Unless we can ultimately understand all the questions about the big bang and creation.
Otherwise your question is either religious or philosophical. Or so I see it.
"Unless you are looking for "God did it" there is no answer and never will be."
Judging from the post, you are the one who say "god did it". Except from that matter exists and all matter is in motion, I'm not accepting any other answer like 'god did it'.
"That these forces exist as a basic facet of nature and do what they do is a result of the laws created in the big bang."
Matter exist and they exert force, that much I agree, and the question is how. OK, for the sake of argument, I agree Big bang created all matter from nothing, but how can laws be created. Laws are just descriptions of observed phenomenon.
"Unless we can ultimately understand all the questions about the big bang and "creation"".
Creation? So god did it?!!!
Natural laws aren't description of observed phenomenon; they are more a prediction of future actions. Give that the physical universe agrees and always follows the prediction, they can be considered as laws.
And yes, the natural laws of the universe came into being during the big bang, as did space, time and energy. Matter came a little later as things began to cool down.
Don't be silly; that the big bang created the universe does not imply an intelligent creator.
Consider the question "why are plant green?" Plants are green because they contain chlorophyll and chlorophyll is green.
Because it absorbs certain wavelengths of light, resulting in wavelengths reflected that we term green.
Because electron orbitals are at discrete energy levels and to advance an electron to the next level requires a particular wavelength of light.
Because. That's the way electrons are. The laws of the universe require it.
There comes a point that the only explanation is that the universe is built that way; the attraction between two objects is such a force.
"Natural laws aren't description of observed phenomenon; they are more a prediction of future actions."
Prediction is for asrology, tarrot reading....
"Give that the physical universe agrees and always follows the prediction, they can be considered as laws."
According to you it was not there before bang, then what law is it? Again when we find some phenomenon does not fit the law, we change the law.
"And yes, the natural laws of the universe came into being during the big bang, as did space, time and energy."
So how did 'nothing' suddenly became something?
"Don't be silly; that the big bang created the universe does not imply an intelligent creator."
Intelligent or not, you are implying creation, that too the most extra-ordinary(and self-refuting) - self-creation!
"Because electron orbitals are at discrete energy levels and to advance an electron to the next level requires a particular wavelength of light."
If you do not how an atom look like, why bother about orbitals?
"That's the way electrons are. The laws of the universe require it."
Again the what we call law is the description of an observed phenomenon. If the law does not fit, we toss out the laws. But we should be able to explain the properties of an object based on the architecture.
"There comes a point that the only explanation is that the universe is built that way; the attraction between two objects is such a force."
We can say it attract, but how?
The answer is gravity. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that is not the answer.
I told you, gravity is just the name of the phenomenon, but what is gravity? How does it act?
Because they come to the realization that they will never win a championship... and that just floors them.... literally
It's impossible to know.
No one knows, no one will ever know. There is just a strange property of matter that warps space-time so that things bend towards one another.
Why? no one will ever know. It's impossible. We just understand that it does this.
Why do things get hot? -- Well, we understand that heat is generally the movement of atoms randomly in Brownian motion...
But why does energy cause mass to giggle? We'll never know. It just does.
This is the hardest part of science to accept.
I've put forth my own **exact** reason for the laws of attraction in the first appendix at the end of "Sweetsong of the Ladydove."
In case you don't want to go to my hub to get my answer, I'll just suggest it here: Matter is probably intelligence, and it was told to gravitate toward other masses, the speed of which is determined by the amount of mass it's gravitating towards.
Once again science causes conflict!
No wonder atheism leads to so many wars
The speed of gravity depends on mass of the objects and their distance from each other. Though in case of big ladies, not a lot of male objects usually gravitate towards them...
maybe. the equilibrium is not in the state of holding it.
Has anyone tried this answer? Component parts of molecules are attracted to each other. If this didn't happen, matter, as we know it, wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't exist. So because protons and neutrons are attracted to each other, this attraction is felt at long distances. Hence, gravity.
You are just repeating the question we have already answered. The failure is in your comprehension, not the answer offered.
Who has answered?
You only said 'gravity', comprehension, or lack there of, is your problem.
Gravitation , or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass: wikipedia.
Where is the mechanism stated?
I'll repeat for your sake..
How two bodies that are not physically connected attract or How two physically discrete bodies exert its action on each other? What is the mechanism? gravity, magnetism or magic are all same...description, what I asked is explanation!
Magnetism and magic are all the same?
Magnetism can be explained using observable physical objects like two rotating wheels with tires on them.If,both tires are rotating in the same dircetion and the are close enough to touch eachother then they can be said to attract as opposed to when the same two tires are rotating in opposite directions and are close enough to touch then they will oppose eachothers rotation.
This would be analogous to repulsion.No magic there.
Gravity in my mind is like rotating masses in a the sense that there can be both attraction and repulsion depending on the orientation of the forces that cause gravity in the first place.
All the Planets like Earth have a magnetic field which is said to be why all planets in the solar system rotate around the sun.However,each planets mass has an effect on how strong it's magnetic field is and the speed at which a planet moves around the sun.The bigger the planet the larger the magnetic field the stronger the attraction or repulsion in relationship to other masses.
Gravity is an example of this principle of attraction and repulsion.
You probably not are aware of it,but I have read somewhere online that there are small areas around the world where gravity is non -existant.Where objects are transported up into earths outer atmosphere where space and earths atmosphere meet.The military knows about it,and we know places like the bermuda triange exist where ships and planes have disappeared mysteriously.so it's possible antigravity exists as well as gravity.
All of these people like to chat, chat, chat...
We don't know why things even have weight, yet. Try looking up the Higgs Boson, or "God," particle.
Why does 2+2=4?
It just does.
Now.. quick someone debate whether mathematics exists in nature (it does) in science (it does) and in religion (it does)
Or someone start a fight that 2+2 couldn't possibly equal 4 because that would mean that you hate gays, don't believe in evolution, and are quite possibly a pedophile.
When you are done with that we can all stand around patting ourselves on the back, confident in the knowledge that we are better than every other person on the planet because we believe in rocks, or God, or the Atom, or the healing power of Peruvian crocodile dung... whatever.
So, what do you mean by "exist"?
Did I ask anything about believing. Anybody can believe anything they want, what I ask for is a rational explanation. Anybody who comes to stuff their beliefs down another's throat, should rationally explain why?
ding ding ding
You had me until that crocodile bug thing. I hope you don't actually believe that. I'd hate to think you're a pedophile.
On many questions, the religious extremists come off pretty goofy, but this happens to be one where the alter of science types really let it all hang out.
* Today *
"Those guys back then... they were idiots. They thought they had the answer.
Then we observed nature more closely and found new data in other fields that contradicted our assumptions. So... we expanded our paradigm to include the old view as a special case of the new conceptual framework.
NOW we have the answer." (pats self on back)
* flash forward 100 years "
"Those guys back then... they were idiots. They thought they had the answer.
Then we observed nature more closely and found new data in other fields that contradicted our assumptions. So... we expanded our paradigm to include the old view as a special case of the new conceptual framework.
NOW we have the answer." (pats self on back)
This is one of those eternal jokes that's actually funnier if you're sitting in the "cheap seats." The further back and wider your view, the more you look at the cultural and historical context of the question itself and man's myriad attempts at an answer, the more poignant the punchline du jour becomes. To buy into the belief that it's all been explained, you almost have to ignore history completely.
Einstein didn't think this way, btw. He didn't believe he'd explained anything... just found more encompassing ways to describe things. He knew the difference. That's a large part of what made him a genius.
The obvious answer is gravity.
The answer is WHY and no it's not because "IT JUST DOES".
That's like asking why is the sky blue and answering it with "IT JUST DOES".
We KNOW there is a deeper meaning.
Einstein believed it was due to a bend in space-time. This same bend which pulls the other planets inwards towards the sun is the same thing keeping us on the ground. Essentially, this bend in space-time is similar to how water swirls down the drain.
We do know however whatever keeping us on the ground also bends things like waves (Light).
This was made clear during a solar eclipse in which people from opposite locations recorded an image of the solar eclipse. Astoundingly, there was the same star in 2 different places on the sky which means light was bent around the sun and appeared as 2 different starts where it is really just 1.
This experiment showed us exactly the nature of gravity. Just like the sink bends water inwards towards the drain, the gravity of the sun (caused by a bend in space time) bends the earth and everything towards the center of the sun.
"Einstein believed it was due to a bend in space-time. This same bend which pulls the other planets inwards towards the sun is the same thing keeping us on the ground. Essentially, this bend in space-time is similar to how water swirls down the drain.
We do know however whatever keeping us on the ground also bends things like waves (Light)."
There are some problems Zhu. If it is the space time that holds earth, then it should be harder than steel to hold a massive object like earth.
So my questions?
What is space time?
To hold a massive object like earth this should be harder than steel(and they claim so), then why we are not squashed to pulp between earth surface and this space time?
How our space crafts and asteroids able to penetrate such massive structure without any problem?
How some satellites are able to revolve in perpendicular directions to the usual one, and what happen to to space time there?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. It seems your view of space times is different than mine. While we do not exactly know what space-time is, I imagine it to be like the plastic in a water funnel (of course it's not composed of the obvious matter - perhaps some sort of force).
What do you mean penetrate such massive structures? What massive structure are you talking about? The space shuttle isn't penetrating anything and once it gets into space, it is in a free fall. The rotation of a shuttle around the earth is due to this frictionless free-fall in which it falls over the Earth. It's the same way as throwing a rock from a mountain. If you throw hard enough (something no man can do), it will fall over the curvature of earth in a rotating free-fall around the earth.
Space is our conceptualization of nothing. So there is nothing. Force is a verb, is done by somebody or something. Time is a concept to denote different location of an object. It again is a concept and concepts don't exist in nature, so there is nothing called space-time, hence you do not know what it is. There is another forum space, you may look into my last post there.
Yo told it is space time that prevent the earth from going away from sun(by acting as a shield, causing gravity). If it can prevent the earth from going out, how it can't prevent an asteroid or rocket that is going into space. If you throw a ball less than the escape velocity it will fall back to earth, but if yo throw it more than the escape v, it will go directly into space and will never stop unless encountered by another object.
Well not exactly.
We call space "nothing" but really there is no such thing as nothing. Space itself IS something which is behind the main theory against creationism. The universe never needed a creation because it didn't come out of nothing. The source of space is something and thus space must inherently be something.
This is all speculation by theoretical physicists of course because we don't specifically know however it isn't all speculation; however, a weird energy can be detected from this seemingly nothing called "Quantum Fluctuations" which is evidence that there is more to this "nothing" than nothing.
Now, your second paragraph has a lot of mistakes in your understanding of physics. Explaining it all would take too long. I don't understand your first sentence about a shield. What shield? I didn't say anything about a shield. Your second sentence doesn't make much sense either but I assume you mean why doesn't gravity prevent rockets from going into space. The answer is mass. The bigger the object, the stronger the pull of gravity. Rockets are very light compared to the Earth and so I can easily escape out of the earth's atmosphere.
If you throw a rock with so much force that it ends up in space, it will not drift away from the earth. It will be caught in it's orbit and orbit with the same principles behind the orbit of the international space station. The rock is in free-fall but it is moving at such a velocity that instead of free-falling straight down (like dropping a rock off a house), it curves around the earth. The international space station is the same way which is why every second, it is slowly falling towards Earth just like the Earth is slowly falling towards the sun.
Exactly. There is NO such THING as 'nothing'. It is absence of everything.Space is the expanse(that can only be negatively predicated) that gives shape to everything. Space is limitless and boundless. If you say space is 'something', then what gives shape to this something?
What is that black stuff around the universe, that gives shape to universe?
Universe is not 'created'. creationism in any form is irrational. If you can agree to that proposal, then we have only one choice left, that is, matter is eternal. And whether matter is created or not, space is eternal. Even for god to exist(he need a shape for that, to distinguish himself from his background-space), there should be space and as space is boundless, god can never go out of space.
You were the one who said gravity is like a funnel that hold earth, not me. I had only two questions. 1) Why a funnel that prevent earth from going out, prevent a smaller rocket? 2) earth should be in constant friction against this funnel, then why we(animals) are not smashed against this funnel?
Laws of motion states that any object in motion will continue to be in motion unless acted by an external force. So a rocket that is propelled more than the speed of escape velocity(the velocity needed to escape the gravity of earth), will continue to be in motion in straight line path, away from earth, unless encountered by another object!
By the way what is this mass?
Your conclusion about God, The Creator, is pure speculation. You have no way of proving He doesn't exist. And this funnel is also referring to the sun's effect on earth and that is what keeps the earth from floating off into space. There are still small differences from what we calculate so we have not solved gravity 100% but enough to send rockets into space.
See we don't prove "existence". Can you prove your right hand exist?
Can you prove your chair or laptop exist?
I only said IF god exist, even he is confined by space, as he can never get out of space. If he does, he immediately loses the only property that make him exist-his shape.
Now a funnel is outside the water that flows through it, not inside and hence the way you propose it, is not going to explain gravity.
Do you make up everything in order to believe you won a debate?
If God exists or not you have no way of knowing anything about Him. And if you don't understand the explanation of gravity as it has been explained as a funnel in many science books than I guess that is your problem.
objects fall because of gravity. Scientists calculate the pull of gravity based on weight of object.
Scientists define gravity in such a way that even if you don't experience or see the phenomenon of gravity, you can calculate it through the weight of the object.
just like smell, you can't see it, but it exists
Poor old Newton had a speech impediment.
He meant to call it "Grabity."
by Julianna8 months ago
Why does God give children to those who abuse them? This has been a question that I have been trying to find an answer for. Discussing this through the years I honestly am looking for a true understanding of why? There...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
We need to fight against what is bad for our lives/survival. We need to realize when to fight and when not to fight. When to yield and when to stand firm.There are times to stand firm. Those times are in defending one's...
by Link101033 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it...
by Ron Hooft6 years ago
If the Christian god is omnipotent then why would it need to order the murder of it's son so that it can forgive? No Christian can answer this because it is utter nonsense. But I challenge any christian to give it a try.
by getitrite4 years ago
As a person raised to believe in the message that has been preached for years about God and Jesus, and what they can do, and how merciful they are, I have never been able to understand why people continue to pray to...
by marinealways248 years ago
I can move objects by using my mind. Do you believe me? Why or why not?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.