Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum What causes acceleration

dehammer ... you asked:
"why dont you read what they write."

then you wrote:
"with out atoms there is no gravity."

I read what you wrote. You are 100% absolutely, totally, completely, beyond redemption WRONG! There is nothing correct about your statement. NOTHING!

You've taken hard of thinking to a new level.

I've said this over and over and over again and you still can't seem to get what is an elementary concept.

Is there anyone else out here at SAGG that can't get the most elementary implication of e=mc^2 that is over 12 years old? Good grief this is sad!

I am not sure what the argument is but since everbody relies on Google - check a few:

Howstuffworks "How does gravity work?"The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces ...
science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages


Light, Atoms, Galaxies and GravityThe concept that energy may act to create charges independent of particles leads to new models for the photon, atoms, and gravity.
www.petcom.com/~john/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages


Does gravity affect atoms?Does gravity affect atoms? ... Gravity affects atoms the same way it affects all other matter. Every atom creates its own gravitational field which attracts ...
education.jlab.org/qa/atomgravity_01.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

It's not for me to say!
jjw

da i just realise what your problem with this is. your claiming that gravity is light.

gravity is one of the four base forces in the universe. they are strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, and electomagnetic force.

e=mc2 pertains to light, which is electromagnetic force.

gravity is a completely different force.

again you did not read what i posted and only took out what it was you needed to dump on.

let me try to put it simple.

gravity is a force that is in the nucli... opps thats not a simple term

gravity is in the middle of an atom. no living human knows what it is exactly. but they do know it is one of the building blocks of the universe. opps another big word. ok. how about its the building blocks of all things man knows about.

it combines... er.. it adds to the power of electromagnet... theres no way to say that simple.... and strong nuclear and weak nuclear... things like the sun and heat... to build the atom. then they combine more to build molocules and then to pull other atoms and molocules towards itself. all the while the other atoms are doing the same.

when the other atoms are part of a large group, they tend to move very slowly towards the single or small group of atoms, which are more free to move. the result is that the small group of atoms will increase the speed towards the large group. the more atoms are in one group the stronger their combined streagth is.


again i will say this as simply as possible. gravity is not the atom, but its the building block of the atom. therefor your not going to find any place where there is not gravity, and no atom is involved. it can exist, but it will not normally do so for long without begining to build the blocks we call atoms.

perhaps you should learn more about science before you claim to be the last word on it.

dehammer wrote:
"your claiming that gravity is light."

No No No No No! You really are hard of thinking. That is not what I've said. It isn't even a reasonable misinterpretation of what I've said.

Can someone loan dehammer a synapse.

you used the formula for light, and claimed it for gravity. put it in a mathimatic formula

energy = mass x light squared.

if energy = gravity then gravity = mass x light scaured. that means your were saying that gravity is mass (atoms) time light squared. can you see how wrong this is.

gravity is one of the 4 basic forces, not a form of one of them.

before you complain about others lack of synapse, you should get yours uncrossed.

e = mc^2 is not about light.


It defines a transformation.

Umm psst.. hey morgan.. light IS form of ENERGY! can you say solar cells? the purdy bright light when they pop of nuke? what plants use to grow? Dark matter? need more? LMAO

More no. But something demonstrating sentience. Now that would be welcome.

You likely don't recall these gems posted by dehammer:

1. "gravity is what we call the force exerted by one atom on all other atoms."

2. "your claiming that gravity is light."

3. "energy = mass x light squared."

These are the topic.

what do you think the c stands for. it stands for light. better go back to school.


DA Morgan wrote

3. "energy = mass x light squared."

you have a problem with me writting the formula in english? or perhaps in the language of politics it means different things that it does in science. you have all but admitted to be a political scince teacher, so how would you really understand physics.

c is the SPEED OF light: Not light.

The speed of a car is not a car.
The speed of a train is not a train.
The speed of a plane is not a plane.

you definately are a teacher of political science. your main points usually have to do with the wording of things rather than the actually meaning. of course its the speed. that does not mean its not used that way. if everyone understand that light means speed of light, why bother spelling it out. the point is, its still relative to light. the speed of the car is relative to cars. if your talking about car speeds your not going to be discussing horses.

light is made up of photons. this is the smallest quantively defineable (by our present lvl of science) opject. its either a particle that acts as an energy wave, or an energy wave that acts as a particle. (i studied laser, so i know about light) any thing smaller than it is appearantly energy. any thing bigger that that is a particle.

gravity is a field, it reaches everywhere, goes through everything. energy cant.

here is an analagy to gravity.

the ocean has waves. these waves can travel 100's of miles an hours. that does not mean the water moves anywhere. if there is a current it could be going in a completely different direction of the wave.

there is a theory as yet unproven that gravity has waves. if it does it will be like the waves of the ocean. just because the waves are moving, the gravity might not be.

dehammer wrote:
"of course its the speed"

And of course you got it wrong repeatedly because you can't be bothered with verifying facts or being accurate.

Accuracy is hardly the basis of politics ... it is the basis of mathematics and the sciences.

But the point is still that your statements were incorrect, all of them, and you have shown that you don't have the integrity required to acknowledge that you were wrong. No surprise.

show me where im wrong.

energy = mass x (speed of) light squared. what is wrong with this.

since the only math for light is speed of light, that means everyone knows that c = speed of light, only those in politics are more interested in slinging mud rather that the reality. the only time science is interested in slinging mud is when its measture the impact of mud or something simular.

you are very good at finding mud to sling. the problem is that political science is not considered REAL science by any one put political clingerons.

dehammer wrote:
"energy = mass x (speed of) light squared. what is wrong with this."

Wow. You copied something Einstein wrote. Ooh baby. Can you teach me Control-C, Control-V too?

Go back to your original statements ... the were incorrect. Restating things correctly after the fact is not a substitute for moral integrity. You WERE wrong. Maybe you've learned something from the experience and won't be so flagrantly and arrogantly wrong in the future. Maybe.

It wasn't slinging mud ... you were wrong. And in playing games you still are conveniently ignoring the fact that the original statements involved a claim that gravity was caused by atoms; it isn't. My use of a simplified statement of Einstein's formula (Einstein didn't actually write it) was to point out that energy and mass are interchangeable and both create gravitational fields.

You were wrong!
You are wrong!
At the rate you're going you will still be wrong!

my restating that was for the benfit of non (real) scienctist and those who understand their ways. as someone that studied lasers in college, we never spelled it out as 'speed of light', we always said 'light'. why should since light is a constant. As a student of politics im sure that the exact wording is extreamly important as even a putting words in slightly different order changes their meaning a very small amount. in science when you are refering to a formula, that is known, there is no need to spell it out.

therefore since we are talking real science here, and not politics, your the one that needs to figure out where you went wrong.

mainly you went wrong when you decided to change the subject from real science to politics since you failed to win the arguement on its own merits.

as i said, the subject is gravity. gravity is not an energy, it is a force. as such the formula for energy is not relavant to it.

if you cant stay on track, and cant help politicing, stop posting.

plus you obviously are not reading things correctly. i said that gravity is in the atom, not that it was created by the atom. i did say that they dont know if it creates the atom or what, but the gravity is from inside the atom.

i said it was mud slinging because you keep insulting ppl rather than discuss the subject. that is mudslinging and you are extreamly good at it.

dehammer wrote:
"as someone that studied lasers in college, we never spelled it out as 'speed of light', we always said 'light'."

Then you were wrong and still are. Demonstrate some integrity and acknowledge it. Funny ... you studied them ... in the 1960's I was building them. I still have two gallium arsenide phosphide, two helium-neon, and one CO2 in my lab.

understanding of how things have changed have improved since the 1960's. its possible to build a very complicated lighting system, without having the slightest understanding of how electricity works.

beyound that i refuse to continue mudslinging with a professional.

How can gravity have gravity? That's like saying time is affected by time.

I understand your confusion RM but it is actually rather simple. Mass an energy are interchangeable and thus both create a gravitational field.

Google "gravity has gravity"

I think it is entertaining to watch DA and dehammer exchange ideas.

I tried DA's Google "gravity has gravity" and I saw a lot of comments on gravity. None of the titles on the first pages used the words "gravity has gravity" so I only opened a few and found nothing of help. From my own part I can see why the idea would be confusing. It is like saying that the gravity related to an object generates gravity of its own which is to me like saying gravity is "creating" a separate gravitational force. If this was true why would not this new gravitational force also create an additional gravity and so on and so on?

Mass can be said to have a potential of energy. But we know of no Mass in this System that is at rest so we note by the movement of the known Mass energy is also involved. People are still trying to measure the strength of gravity and from what little I read they are not doing it as if there were layers of gravity that were also producing more gravity.

I have never learned how E=Mc^2 is supposed to relate to the existence or non-existence of gravity. I thought it was a measure of the energy we can expect to get from a given amount of Mass. To say that energy has gravity is a little missleading to me because the photon is just about pure energy and appears to have no gravitational field of its own. An electric current is energy and has a magnetic field around a conductor but we do not call it a gravitational field.

While admitting my lack of backround here I do not think it is accurate to say that Mass and energy are interchangable. Some other thing must be added to convert one to the other, like the way we convert water and ice. It would follow from my viewpoint that energy has not been shown to have gravity. What "gravity has gravity" means is beyound me, and I admit it.
jjw