What is Gravity?

[Res Ipsa]

Nope. It's not a simple question. It's a loaded question. If it weren't, you wouldn't again balk at clarifying terms. Have you done original research on the topic "what is gravity?" If so, what research have you done?

Regardless of the type or level, have you ever done any kind of independent research or observations about gravity, at all, ever? Like it's you doing the research, you observe something, you write it down, etc.?

Yes. Where did you copy the balloon filled with anti-air from?

[Valo]

Regardless of the type or level, have you ever done any kind of independent research or observations about gravity, at all, ever? Like it's you doing the research, you observe something, you write it down, etc.?

Yes. Where did you copy the balloon filled with anti-air from?

Tell me about your independent research on gravity and what did you learn?

[Res Ipsa]

Yes. Where did you copy the balloon filled with anti-air from?

Tell me about your independent research on gravity and what did you learn?

My lab partner and I designed and built an apparatus to test the relationship between a falling object, the object rolling down an inclined plane, and the angle of the plane. I learned that our experiment delivered inaccurate results because we had neglected to take into account the angular momentum of the rolling object. I learned afterword that Galileo had done the experiment more accurately using sliding, instead of rolling, objects.

I've also dropped lots and lots of objects over time.

Where did you read or hear about the balloon filled with anti-air?

[Valo]

Tell me about your independent research on gravity and what did you learn?

My lab partner and I designed and built an apparatus to test the relationship between a falling object, the object rolling down an inclined plane, and the angle of the plane. I learned that our experiment delivered inaccurate results because we had neglected to take into account the angular momentum of the rolling object. I learned afterword that Galileo had done the experiment more accurately using sliding, instead of rolling, objects.

I've also dropped lots and lots of objects over time.

Where did you read or hear about the balloon filled with anti-air?

Heck yeah! That sounds awesome! Actually doing stuff is way more satisfying than just talking about it.

I quoted Michael Sherwin in the OP. The ether idea is his. I came up with the balloon idea on the fly to explain how I understood Michael Sherwin's ether idea as I understood it but I believe Michael Sherwin also used a similar type of description at some point when he posted about it some time ago. I'll see if I can find it and I'll copy and paste that here if I do.

[Res Ipsa]

My lab partner and I designed and built an apparatus to test the relationship between a falling object, the object rolling down an inclined plane, and the angle of the plane. I learned that our experiment delivered inaccurate results because we had neglected to take into account the angular momentum of the rolling object. I learned afterword that Galileo had done the experiment more accurately using sliding, instead of rolling, objects.

I've also dropped lots and lots of objects over time.

Where did you read or hear about the balloon filled with anti-air?

Heck yeah! That sounds awesome! Actually doing stuff is way more satisfying than just talking about it.

I quoted Michael Sherwin in the OP. The ether idea is his. I came up with the balloon idea on the fly to explain how I understood Michael Sherwin's ether idea as I understood it but I believe Michael Sherwin also used a similar type of description at some point when he posted about it some time ago. I'll see if I can find it and I'll copy and paste that here if I do.

And the reason the DS is talking about the aether is that it is mentioned twice in the Bible, right?

[Valo]

Heck yeah! That sounds awesome! Actually doing stuff is way more satisfying than just talking about it.

I quoted Michael Sherwin in the OP. The ether idea is his. I came up with the balloon idea on the fly to explain how I understood Micahael Sherwin's ether idea as I understood it but I believe Michael Sherwin also used a similar type of description at some point when he posted about it some time ago. I'll see if I can find it and I'll copy and paste that here if I do.

And the reason the DS is talking about the aether is that it is mentioned twice in the Bible, right?

I have no idea. You are scared of new ideas aren't you?

[Res Ipsa]

And the reason the DS is talking about the aether is that it is mentioned twice in the Bible, right?

I have no idea. You are scared of new ideas aren't you?

LOL! You're not talking about new ideas. The aether is a very old idea. You're confusing ideas you've encountered recently with new ideas.

But see what you did there? You can't stick with talking about ideas.

[Gadianton]

Valo, buddy, we've got to talk.

I asked the question about the aether because it was part of the Davidic Servant's explanation of gravity. Remember in another thread you talk about an engine and tracking all the parts that go into an engine? If somebody starts talking about bananas and chisels as components of a combustion engine, you might be interested in sorting out the understanding of the components required to build an engine before getting to the more complicated parts of how the components work together.

If light travels relative to aether, and aether is moving around like a wild snake in the grass, then what on earth is it moving relative to? The idea of aether is to provide a stable medium for light to travel through, just like water or air is the medium for sound. Aether would fill the whole universe like one big ocean. The problem is that light measures at a constant speed at every position of uniform motion it's ever been measured from. This results in space contraction and time dilation of relative frames with respect to yourself, which if I recall, gave rise to speculation that aether squished together and contorted in order to stay compatible with the theory. I'm not sure aether was directly falsified by these experiments, it just becomes a pointless assumption that adds complexity, and now you have to explain the weirdness of light (something easily measured) by proxy of explaining the weirdness of aether (something that has never been measured). And now you want the aether, which was supposed to be a big stable pool of water, which now has to contort in possibly impossible ways to explain light, to zip in squiggles like a snake in the grass to explain a bunch of other stuff while still being compatible with precise and easy measurements to take of light at various inertial frames? It's madness, Valo.

What we mostly think of as gravity is actually a very slight difference in how fast time flows in different places. It flows very slightly slower the closer you are to a heavier mass. If one identical twin were to live on Mercury while the other stayed on Earth, after fifty years the twin on Mercury would be about one second younger. That tiny difference in time flow is what keeps the planets orbiting the sun instead of flying off into interstellar space.

Don't listen to me, Valo, listen to Physics Guy. You've got a great opportunity to ask whatever you want about physics and actually learn something. Maybe bring the Davidic Servant to this forum and you guys can learn together?

If you're in the world of aether under assumptions of uniform motion and already have an impossible mess to sort out, we can't move on to the general case where the assumption of a constant rate of motion is dropped. However, I can attempt to skip to the last chapter of the text and give it a shot:

Imagine a balloon that requires pressure to be inflated but any time you force "air" in to the balloon that air gets annihilated because inside the balloon is "antiair" and so you have to continuously pump air in to the balloon to keep it inflated. As the air collides with anti-air, it creates a resistance, gravity, and all the forces, etc.

So you've got the force of the elasticity of the balloon, the force of the air pressure, and forces of air and anti-air coming together, and this system of forces....creates all the forces?

Doesn't that strike you as circular?

[Valo]

I have no idea. You are scared of new ideas aren't you?

LOL! You're not talking about new ideas. The aether is a very old idea. You're confusing ideas you've encountered recently with new ideas.

But see what you did there? You can't stick with talking about ideas.

Okay, talk about the ether. I know you can do it!

[Valo]

Valo, buddy, we've got to talk.

I asked the question about the aether because it was part of the Davidic Servant's explanation of gravity. Remember in another thread you talk about an engine and tracking all the parts that go into an engine? If somebody starts talking about bananas and chisels as components of a combustion engine, you might be interested in sorting out the understanding of the components required to build an engine before getting to the more complicated parts of how the components work together.

If light travels relative to aether, and aether is moving around like a wild snake in the grass, then what on earth is it moving relative to? The idea of aether is to provide a stable medium for light to travel through, just like water or air is the medium for sound. Aether would fill the whole universe like one big ocean. The problem is that light measures at a constant speed at every position of uniform motion it's ever been measured from. This results in space contraction and time dilation at relative observations, which if I recall, gave rise to speculation that aether squished together and contorted in order to stay compatible with the theory. I'm not sure aether was directly falsified by these experiments, it just becomes a pointless assumption that adds complexity, and now you have to explain the weirdness of light (something easily measured) by proxy of explaining the weirdness of aether (something that has never been measured). And now you want the aether, which was supposed to be a big stable pool of water, which now has to contort in possibly impossible ways to explain light, to zip in squiggles like a snake in the grass to explain a bunch of other stuff while still being compatible with precise and easy measurements to take of light at various inertial frames? It's madness, Valo.

What we mostly think of as gravity is actually a very slight difference in how fast time flows in different places. It flows very slightly slower the closer you are to a heavier mass. If one identical twin were to live on Mercury while the other stayed on Earth, after fifty years the twin on Mercury would be about one second younger. That tiny difference in time flow is what keeps the planets orbiting the sun instead of flying off into interstellar space.

Don't listen to me, Valo, listen to Physics Guy. You've got a great opportunity to ask whatever you want about physics and actually learn something. Maybe bring the Davidic Servant to this forum and you guys can learn together?

If you're in the world of aether under assumptions of uniform motion and already have an impossible mess to sort out, we can't move on to the general case where acceleration is allowed, and the assumption of a constant rate of motion is dropped. However, I can attempt to skip to the last chapter of the text and give it a shot:

Imagine a balloon that requires pressure to be inflated but any time you force "air" in to the balloon that air gets annihilated because inside the balloon is "antiair" and so you have to continuously pump air in to the balloon to keep it inflated. As the air collides with anti-air, it creates a resistance, gravity, and all the forces, etc.

So you've got the force of the elasticity of the balloon, the force of the air pressure, and forces of air and anti-air coming together, and this system of forces....creates all the forces?

Doesn't that strike you as circular?

Before you can talk about something you have to get edumacated. I recommend you go get edumacated.