Search results

So.... This thread was about something... :rolleyes:

That's right. And you think gravity is not a force. Game over.

NASA says so. Quanta says so. Universetoday says so. Sciencefocus says so. Who are you? You can't lift a box?

So you are backing down on your assertion that gravity is not a force?

:cautious: NASA says so. Quanta says so. Universetoday says so. Sciencefocus says so. Who are you? None of that says gravity is not a force.

It is gravity. People tend to assert that it must be "space warping," or that the separate demands of gravity and relativity are the same thing.

You do realize this means they think that gravity is a force, right?

Looks like double speak to me. Kinda blows this assertion of yours outta the water either way. Oh, so now you're qualifying your assertion? Is gravity a force of any kind?

OK. My assertion is that "mass causes magic" and I'm calling that magic gravity. I can't measure magic, but I can measure pressure perturbations and log those measurements with timestamps. What makes "space warping" better than "magic"? Ironically, I think that I'm playing the devil's...

Sorry. I can't parse that. Is it your assertion that "mass warps space and that warping is called gravity"? Can you measure space warping?

It hasn't been replaced. Relativity is a correction on the application of naive Newtonian equations in extreme situations. It's not the best correction, and it requires the unfounded assumption of the constancy of lightspeed. Right now, in fact. Take that thing you're smoking and drop it...

But you can do it by warping space. The observations are explained by gravity. You assert that gravity works by warping space. I say gravity works by magic. What makes your assertion better than mine?

Gravity is the observation that masses are attracted to each other according to an inverse square law. You seem to think that it doesn't exist, making everything you say useless.

:LOL: The mantle is not molten.

Apologies. I didn't read your example carefully. That's just an example of gravity in action. Allow me to alter my initial response. Why is the explanation "space is warped" justified over "magic"?

And how do you know that the change in the gravity environment is not affecting your instruments?

I say that gravity "warping space" is a description no better than "magic."

With that Muppet, anything can mean anything. Does space have mass?

Maybe. At rupture, it would have been all supercritical. Somewhere near the 40th parallel. When the distribution of mass shifted on the surface, the conservation of angular momentum reacted by making the equator the ring with the greatest average mass cross referenced against the distance...

That would be my guess. But water does weird things in extreme situations. Don't bother looking where the pole is today.