jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (93 posts)

Why objects fall to ground?

  1. profile image0
    jomineposted 6 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am not looking for any 'laws'!
        All I want is the mechanism of the attraction!!
        If I have found the answer, I would be going to the press, instead of posting the question here! smile

    2. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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. smile

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        OK, objects don't attract, then why the apple got to the ground, instead of going to the sky?

        1. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It didn't, the ground accelerated up towards the apple. smile

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Naturally! I don't expect a natural explanation from a relativist, but only supernatural and magik. smile

            1. Beelzedad profile image58
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Then, once again, you aren't interested in any answers. So, it's time to ignore you again. smile

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's the best thing you can do, when you have no answers! smile

                1. Beelzedad profile image58
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, ignoring you is the best thing I should do. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So you agree you have no rational answers!

        2. galleryofgrace profile image81
          galleryofgraceposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Because they don't have wings. DUH!

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
            prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hehe,,

            I believe you, wings can make you float against the wind

      2. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "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?

    3. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why objects fall to the ground?

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5171185_f248.jpg

    4. Ben Evans profile image73
      Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    5. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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)

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What is mass?


        Newton couldn't answer- agreed, nobody answered- agreed, question is, can anybody answer?

        1. OutWest profile image60
          OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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)

            1. OutWest profile image60
              OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Movement has nothing to do with it.  Mass is like density.  The point is all objects have gravity.

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are vague. Density is very simple. Take the number of atoms and divide it by the area occupied. What about mass?   

                Has? or exhibit? or connected by?

        2. Ben Evans profile image73
          Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Most certainly, I can't that is why I asked. smile



            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?

            1. Ben Evans profile image73
              Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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
              Bill Gaede.

            2. mathsciguy profile image60
              mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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.

    6. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You might find interesting the following video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ

      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?

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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?
        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5262242.jpg


        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5262246.jpg

        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?

        1. mathsciguy profile image60
          mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. mathsciguy profile image60
              mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh.

              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.
              Your thoughts?

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                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?

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  But, as somebody said, There is only atoms and space, rest are all opinions!

                2. mathsciguy profile image60
                  mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. profile image0
                    jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "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?!!!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.
        Why?
        Because it absorbs certain wavelengths of light, resulting in wavelengths reflected that we term green.
        Why?
        Because electron orbitals are at discrete energy levels and to advance an electron to the next level requires a particular wavelength of light.
        Why?
        Because.  That's the way electrons are.  The laws of the universe require it.
        Why?
        Because.

        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.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "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?

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    The answer is gravity.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that is not the answer.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I told you, gravity is just the name of the phenomenon, but what is gravity? How does it act?

      1. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I just told you how it acts.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "So, if the effect of gravity is like electromagnetic radiation'"

          You didn't say how it act, you only said the effect is like...
          Then your second answer was that the ground accelerate towards the apple.

          Which is the natural explanation?

      2. NathanielZhu profile image77
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Read my comment way down below

  4. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Answer:

    Because they come to the realization that they will never win a championship... and that just floors them.... literally

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2011-03/59906953.jpg

    1. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      that was Marc Anthony's fault. We should have brought the Old 97's to play for us before the game.

  5. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    The earth sucks. That's why things fall to the ground.

  6. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Why object fall to ground? Because it was dropped. lol

  7. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    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.

  8. SamboRambo profile image87
    SamboRamboposted 6 years ago

    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."

    1. SamboRambo profile image87
      SamboRamboposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  9. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    you see!

    Once again science causes conflict!

    No wonder atheism leads to so many wars

    smile

  10. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    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...

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile
      But i'm asking how two physically separated objects interact?
      The mechanism of interaction!

  11. mambuayjunaid profile image59
    mambuayjunaidposted 6 years ago

    maybe. the equilibrium is not in the state of holding it.

  12. SamboRambo profile image87
    SamboRamboposted 6 years ago

    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.

  13. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    You are just repeating the question we have already answered.  The failure is in your comprehension, not the answer offered.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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!

      1. secularist10 profile image87
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A description is an explanation.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You describe how it is, say like shape, you explain how it interact, the relation!!

  14. someonewhoknows profile image32
    someonewhoknowsposted 6 years ago

    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.

  15. maplethorpej profile image79
    maplethorpejposted 6 years ago

    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.

  16. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. R.S. Hutchinson profile image83
        R.S. Hutchinsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @Melissa.. finite math can prove that 2+2= 5 (not four). It is a very convinving and logical explation in Algebra.  smile

    2. Greg Sage profile image59
      Greg Sageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  17. NathanielZhu profile image77
    NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago

    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.

    ASTF.TK

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "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?

      1. NathanielZhu profile image77
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. NathanielZhu profile image77
            NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. profile image0
              jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5254720_f248.jpg
              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?

              1. OutWest profile image60
                OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. OutWest profile image60
                    OutWestposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you make up everything in order to believe you won a debate? lol
                    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.

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    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

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Smell does not exist. Molecules reach from the source, to our olfactory neurons, which is stimulated, which we 'sense' as smell, there is nothing called 'smell that' exists in nature.

  19. R.S. Hutchinson profile image83
    R.S. Hutchinsonposted 6 years ago

    Centrifical force.

    1. NathanielZhu profile image77
      NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, but I think the people are asking the cause of the centripetal force and that is gravity. They are asking what gravity is and the centripetal force is the result of gravity and Newton's law

  20. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Poor old Newton had a speech impediment.
    He meant to call it "Grabity."

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile

      We only have religion-ists idiot and relativists idiots!!
      On second thoughts, they are one and the same!

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol So it seems! lol

  21. celebritie profile image76
    celebritieposted 6 years ago

    I thought it was because of gravity.

  22. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Because they are too tired to fly...

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile

 
working