What is Gravity, how does it come about.

'' Cite, please? Note that "your ass" is not a convincing citation. ''You don't seem to know your Einstein stuff do you... type 'Einsteins painter' into google, there has to be something there that will enlighten you.

You're right, I did. The table wasn't exactly clear.Revised figures: 1 atm = 1.0132500 bar = 14.6960000 psi.Same pressure measured in different ways. So obviously different numbers.But acceleration and gravity are the same thing measured in the same units. So 1 g = 1 g. It's lunacy to conclude differently.9.8 m/s^2 is 9.8 m/s^2 no matter what you measure.

How about you just tell me, Dr. Mysterious? Or don't you even know?

'' Same pressure measured in different ways. ''No, 1 bar is not the same pressure as 1 atmosphere and that is my point.Had you got it right and then not got it wrong again, I was going to ask you if you realised why there are 2 different measures for just about the same thing...9.8 is indeed equal to 9.8... but 1g acceleration is not the same as 1G stationary on the ground.

I never said it was. I said that 1 atm was the same pressure as 1.013250 bar. Are you having reading problems? Two different techniques for measuring pressure. It is - they're both equal to 9.8 m/s^2.

Can I take it your answer to my first question...'' First we must separate it from 'G-force' or powered acceleration, that of say a motor car or fair-ground ride.They are similar but NOT the same thing. ''Yes?Is 'no' then?[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-30-2004]

Am I going to regret asking if you have objections to the rest?

First, bare links are discouraged here. Read the Forum Guidelines, check out #5. Guidelines aren't enforced in FFA, but I thought you wanted out of here.Second, your link is to a paper that is definitely not mainstream physics, contradicting your denial.If you're going to make headway it would help if you a) stopped misrepresenting your views; b) explain your views clearly rather than cryptically; c) stopped criticizing other members who are honestly trying to make sense of your comments.--Percy

V-bird, I have a question. Have ever taken a phsyics course? You have said things that would make any physics student laugh. The gravitional force of the earth acting on a body at its surface is the same for all bodies, regardless of its motion. (given that it small, like people, mountains, ect. Large bodies. ie moons and planets, would cause a different acceleration between teh two bodies). It doesn't matter if you are "at rest" or moving, the acceleration of gravity is the same, unless you are increasing the distance between the two bodies. Also, the principles of motion, until you approach the speed of light, are cleary described by newtonian mechanics. The motions are predictable, and work regardless of the type of force applied.

Yes. Those two things are indistinguishable forces, as concluded by Galileo and Einstein. From that we conclude that gravity is acceleration due to curved spacetime, and therefore, that spacetime is a real participant in the universe.

I'm sorry but I simply do not understand what you mean by that being a 'bare link' the accompanying arguement is in thread, isn't it? I added the guideline of where to find a particular passage, to find individual quotes [which may or may not be taken out of context] is bad practice.Selectively taking single points from various texts to support an arguement often leads to a construction of almost complete fabrication.Even the paper in my link does this and I had to check each of the 10 links it used to ensure each one was not taken out of context. That has taken me a long time, quite discouraging when it is dismissed in such a cavalier fashion.What do you regard as 'mainstream'?I believe that Einstein is fairly mainstream, and yet throughout his works [some of which can be found correctly translated here:- — « ’ ] he never once refers to 'bent space-time' he writes only of Co-ordinates, the only reference I can find to 'bent co-ordinates' was he when trying to avoid giving Minkowski credit for his theory of Pseudo-space-time, Minkowski and Einstein 'had issues' due to the scathing comments Minkowski made about Einstein being 'lazy and slow' when he was Minkowskis' student.I am not sure that I want to make much 'headway' on a forum that seems populated by individuals that are cursed to chase their own tails believing that a near void can be bent rather than the energy within.You are asking for clarity on a subject that requires multiple dimensions to see clearly in the minds eye, by the simple fact that I have to discard so many of those dimensions the result is not going to be quite as cut and dried as you ask, the language any language is simply not eqipped with the syntax for that.As to criticising... the terms bullshit etc. have not come from me, but somehow just passing a gentle rebuke is!Some here are not looking to 'make sense' of my statements but rather just being endlessly contentious.I wanted to make my point about Gravity and what we here have found that may put some of the present thinking on its' mettle.My desire to do this is waning every day.

V-bird, I have a question. Have ever taken a phsyics course? [1] You have said things that would make any physics student laugh. [2] The gravitional force of the earth acting on a body at its surface is the same for all bodies, regardless of its motion. (given that it small, like people, mountains, ect. Large bodies. ie moons and planets, would cause a different acceleration between teh two bodies). It doesn't matter if you are "at rest" or moving, the acceleration of gravity is the same, unless you are increasing the distance between the two bodies.[3] Also, the principles of motion, until you approach the speed of light, are cleary described by newtonian mechanics. The motions are predictable, and work regardless of the type of force applied.[4]1/. Yes.
2/. I told my son that we were descended from monkey-like creatures, he laughed as well.
3/. No.
4/. Yes.

Does it transition into different dimmensions or is it made up of a "something" that is omnidimensional? I can test 3 dimensions of spacial distance but am I actually testing many more but my mind can only process the first 3?Are the other dimensions of space located at the outer limits of the space-energy envelope only or are the other dimensions also present at my location as well?I give you a lot of credit on your knowledge because I'm reading these posts and thinking to myself "Man, how'd these guys figure all this stuff out?". 3 dimensions is straight forward for me but just adding an additional dimension of distance begs for a control-alt- delete in my brain.

Shortest distance or fastest mode of travel. I am only understanding that a gravity bend would speed up anything with mass but not change the distance it has to travel. Similiar to a pinball traveling faster to the bottom paddles as it richochets off the active bumpers verses rolling in a straight line down the declined table top. Bad analogy by me?

It's not so much any disability of your mind as it is the fact that all of your senses probe the universe by recieving signals that themselves have to follow the curves and bends of bent spacetime.Try and answer the question I posed to V-bird: You're in a space capsule that's totally insulated from the outside world. No windows and no sound. You're either sitting on the surface of the earth (and experiencing one g of gravity) or accellerating in space at one g.How do you tell the difference? Either way you're pulled into your seat at one g.If you can't tell the difference between gravity and accelleration, then there is no difference, and gravity is just an illusion caused by motion though curved space, like those coin banks where the nickel orbits down the bugle-shaped funnel.