How gravity works

Just a quick question; does photographic plate know the exact locations of the photons when they hit it? lol

Spin causes centrifugal “force” (outward), not centripetal (inward).

Not all rivers and streams flow south or downhill.

That is because not all “south” is “downhill”.

it’s not just downhill. have any of you ever looked at or learned science at all? In science, it is taught that a majority of rivers and streams north of the equator flow south while those below the equator flow north, but this isn’t an absolute. Some flow uphill as well due to water pressure and where they stem from, going against gravity, against the flow.

Come on and continue trying to sound smart with your arguments when you’re all really just flying from seats of incompetence and ignorance without actually knowing any requisite and relating material.

Ever heard the term “sophomore syndrome”?

Speculation and feelings of confident superiority does not constitute knowledge. You actually have many of your carts before their horses. But perhaps in a year or so, you will begin to realize that.

Yeah, but I have a leg to stand on scientifically and interweaving with nature to actually look at what is there. Do you have something to actually legitly contradict what I have theorized and hypothesized or are you just babbling?

I mean, I have NEVER EVER EVER had my philosophies or theories called sophomoric by the sycophantic jealous and envious.

And to prove that I used the word sycophantic properly:

Considering that you all seem to not know what words mean, even when they’re used in proper context.

Now, I should also show the definition for obsequious, because there might still be confusion:

You all will have to look up any other words you don’t know.

But, the gist is that you all are acting in an obedient fashion, constraining and restraining your own emotions and responses in order to gain a tactical advantage over me, which directly conflicts with the fact that I’m actually right and you know it somewhere within you and it’s tearing you all apart and you think you’re getting stronger and smarter for it, but all it is is a way to keep idiots busy because you all refuse to do other than what you’re doing, at least here and in this place if not all throughout your life, allowing for the fact that you are what you are here and in this manner, this placement and are different upon being viewed by others.

In fear of boasting, I am way, way past your confusions. But just to help get you started, think about this one issue first:

When a large object is set to spin and there is a small object lightly attached, would you expect the small object to fly off of the larger one, or to press down more tightly? Most would recognize merely intuitively that the smaller object would fly off of the larger. That is the effect called “centrifugal force”. And in order to keep the small object upon the larger while it spins (such as a person upon the Earth), a “centripetal force” must be applied to hold the smaller object down onto the larger. The nomenclature has been established to call that inherent centripetal force, “gravity”.

That is merely the issue of what is called by which name: gravity is the centripetal force from the mass of a larger object holding a small object down, not the centrifugal force from the spin which attempts to drive the object up and away. The Earth’s spin actually causes objects to be slightly lighter at the equator where the velocity of the spin is greatest. Water tends to travel toward that equator (forcing the ice toward the poles). If the Earth spun fast enough, the ocean water would begin to spray up into the air along the equator seemingly all by itself.

The Moon orbits the Earth due to a velocity that it acquired long ago. The Earth’s spin has nearly nothing to do with it (except that the Moon was probably a part of the Earth very long ago). In the Moon’s orbit, both the centripetal and the centrifugal “forces” are balanced, thus the Moon goes neither away nor nearer, but merely orbits the Earth. The Earth’s mass provides the centripetal force and the momentum of the Moon provides the centrifugal force.

None of that explains WHY gravity works. All of that was merely to catch you up to the designated nomenclature and very well established science involved. WHY gravity works is currently beyond public science, but is easy to understand with a little different education.

That was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

:laughing:

Hardly … #-o

It is, though. It’s side-tracking. How the moon goes around the Earth is completely different from explaining how gravity works, which is what I did in rudimentary form. There are, undoubtedly, other things that go into play in creating the atmospheric conditions we know as well as our gravitational forces. I don’t know everything and don’t pretend to. All I ever said is that I know enough to go off of and I don’t leap before looking. I make sure there’s enough evidence reinforcing what I believe and then I even believe contrary and contradictory to it just to challenge it and if it ceases to make sense, I discard it. What I have posted above is an accumulation over time of thought and observance and not just a ‘sophomoric’ approach.

And, I am going to take it seriously when you step to and try to discredit an actual idea. You wanted to fight this fight and it gets nastier from here on out.

No, you did not. You began your explanation with:

I merely mentioned that spinning causes centrifugal force, flying off, not centripetal, being held down.

Well, I am afraid that you have actually leaped before looking (and not only on this topic). Leaping before looking seems to be your motif (hence the “sophomore syndrome” - learning a little more causing a feeling of knowing a lot more).

No, clearly you do not. But at least you recognize that one should.

Perhaps a better approach would be to discuss it on a forum like this wherein people can show you errors that you would not have caught yourself (aka “Resolution Debating”) … BEFORE drawing conclusions.

And all I said in response to that was that you only described one side of Centrifugal force. The standard definition. That standard is incomplete without the flip side which you claim to be centripetal and yet is still wholly different than Centripetal.

How do you figure when I knew enough of what I was talking about before talking about and still have not made a complete ass out of myself like you have.

I have proven that I do beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Perhaps you all would be wise to do the same and take your own advice. I’m going to bypass the standard return insult of ‘but at least you recognize that one should’ because it’s fucking trite. Besides, if you have such experience, isn’t that what we’re doing here and this forum that is similarly designed for this? Is that not what you yourself are bringing in bullshit fashion: opposition?

Try to avoid being blind to how much it is your loss and not mine.

If you don’t care how people perceive you, I certainly have no reason to either.

I find that my perception of myself should mean more than what other people perceive, since they often perceive negatively and come at me in attack when I never bother to think of attacking them. I am about the pursuit and furthering of knowledge and since, strangely, that’s happening while there’s fighting, then I’m learning to enjoy the fighting. How am I losing?

As they say, “Another one is born every minute”.

… and that is how you are “losing”.

There are lot’s of reasons why I’m ‘losing’; but don’t ever mistake my loss as a loss and anything less than the victory it is.

Lets drop the nonsense and observe the premise of the OP, which is that c is constant only in reference to gravitational potential.

thus the actual constant is the relation between e, c and m.

.
Literally how gravitation works:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yW00U4ZEQ4[/youtube]

I politely disagree.
Because cosmology is omni-centric, differentiated and relative, as Einstein proved, but ontology is simply local and universal, the same everywhere and thus free to itself.

To bridge that you need a philosophical approach, apparently - Einstein overlooked a very simple inference that proves that God must appear to play dice.
For some reason, he did not infer the principle implicit in his physics; a principle which applies both locally and universally.

What QM demonstrates is that quanta need to be taken as reference frames as well. Thus, that one can’t discern their location and momentum at the same time. Thus, that from a perspective outside of that reference frame, there is an uncertainty involved.