[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by MJA

Thanks for your help Greg,
Here are all the numbers for the above equation except the number for F or force.
With all the zeros included can you or any one compute the number for F?


"Mass of the Earth = 5.98 × 1024 kg" = 5000000000000000000000000.98 kg
"Mass of the moon = 7.36 × 1022 kg" = 70000000000000000000000.36 kg
"Gravitational Constant (see above) = -600000000000.67 ? (Gravities?)
"Mean distance between Earth and moon = 384,400 km
Numerically F =( Fill in the number )?

Thanks,
MJA

Far Out MJA .....

I will try. My calculator only goes to 19 decimal places. Give me some time. Also I think you have the numbers /constant wrong.


Earth = 5,980,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 00 kg
Moon = 73,600,000,000,000,000,000,000. 00kg
Constant = 0. 000,000,000,066,7


greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

So attraction would then be at both ends of the string?





regards michael.

________________________________

While we may be off topic here about the causal identity of gravity and moving right along on the rails of l'affaires d'amour categorized attraction.

Maybe the middle of the string would be a divorce rate in exess of 50%?

Perhaps an equation of the bilaterally symmetrical diminishng with the value of bonded duration?

[Graybeard]

Dear MJA ..... please don't hold me to this

[Graybeard]

I may be wrong about the Kilograms/metre squared term.

I think it is saying that the centre of gravity of the Earth is 'pulling' or 'accelerating' towards the centre of gravity of the moon, and vice a versa with a force of

19,746,377,224,392.361 tonnes ... or rounded

19,750 billion tonnes ...... maybe .... as their inertial masses are opposing this 'pull' and their force vectors were accelerating away from each other initially, their combined gravitational mass (Big M) eventually balanced the combined inertial mass (little m) and resulted in their current orbit between each other. The Sun, of course plays a big part in this as well, as do the planets and Sirius the Dog Star and rest of the entire Universe to a lesser extent.

The Sun burns this amount of fuel every few minutes, converting hydrogen into helium. The Sun consists of over 98% of the entire mass of our solar system ... I think. We live on a speck of dust, Jupiter is a grain. A simile that holds good is the view of an ant riding on the axle of a roman chariot as it raced across a dirt plain, looking round it mused "What a dust do I raise". Until Copernicus showed us the error of our ways we thought we were the centre of everything too.

Please don't ask me to calculate all the forces involved. My name is Greg Isaac not Isaac Newton



cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

— Drops in the Bucket —

In a galaxy among the zillions,
There’s an average sun, among quazillions,
And a planet, Earth, among trillions,
Where billions live and die—well, whoop-de-do!

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Dear MJA ..... please don't hold me to this

Thanks Greg,

Bit of a brain teaser, wasn't it?
So what are you going to do with F Greg?
Me, well, I can't think of a single thing!
I'm not even going to tell anyone because, they made jackets (straight) and padded walls for people who say things like that.
The response would be: F is what?
Lock him up!!!

Kidding aside, thanks, I knew you would have fun with that.
The knowledge of F is not the path to TOE, I think it only takes us futher away, way to many zeros away.
Don't you agree?

MJA

[Graybeard]

Hmmmmm .... not really sure what you mean MJA.

If you are talking on a metaphysical level and using epistemology or ontological arguments then I suppose the gravitational force exerted between Earth and the Moon doesn't really have much relevance..

But if you are referring to the baser level of existence that consists of our banal everyday reality then I can't think of a single object that has not been designed without (F = ma) being called upon.

Pliers, knives, automobiles, ladders, traffic lights, tables, chairs, pot plant holders, the list doesn't ever stop. Everything we use or make use of is designed to withstand or supply the forces it needs to operate for its set purpose. (F = ma) is ubiquituous. If you deny the existence of (F = ma) you place yourself alongside the ant who rode on the axletree of the roman chariot in post 54 above.

In the main I think Rascal posted this thread as a statement on the causes and effects of gravity, though we have wandered all over the place.

Ontological debates are fine by me, but because of their ephemeral nature I find it difficult to argue on grounds that continually shift beneath my feet. I am much more confident on secure ground were ideas can be proved right, or proved wrong.

I do accept that the TOE, if realised, will provide material, experimental proof only. But I also believe that Consciousness and all its offshoots spring from the degree of sapience that home-sapiens has achieved. I don't accept that sapience is the exclusive domain of homo-sapiens.

I believe that all mammals have a degree of sapience although this has never been proved. At the current level of knowledge it appears that no other species exhibits sapience. I believe that a simpler form of sapience provided a beneficial natural selection to mammals somewhere back around the end of the Permian period and the beginning 0f the Triassic Period 248 million years ago. The end of the Permian was marked by the near complete extinction of all life on the planet.

Mammal-like reptiles called lystrosaurs, were among the only surviving land vertebrates from the Permian, they were joined by the dinosaurs and other "ruling" reptiles, frogs, and early crocodiles. During the period, mammal-like reptiles evolved traits that were closer and closer to those of mammals. By period's end, some were classified as the first mammals.

I believe that it was around this time that the first signs of 'consciousness', better described as sapience evolved.

Where did sapience take the surviving life forms? Well, here we are, you and I, discussing the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon. Not so banal when you think about it.


cool bananas ... greg

(shit ... once again we have wandered from the thread.)

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ....

Is matter continuous or discontinuous?
_______________________________________
The first indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Evangelista Torricelli (1608 - 1647), a disciple of Galileos. Was delegated the problem, by Galileo, as to why suction pumps can only raise water 10 meters. Torricelli suspected that the vacuum created by the pumps was not a force but rather the outside air pressure was pushing the water up. Ergo, says Torricelli, Mercury is 13.5 times more dense than water, therefor the air pressure should only be able to raise it 750 mm. He filled a 1 meter tube to the brim with mercury, inverted it in a bowl of Mercury and withdrew the cork. The Mercury fell and paused at a height of 750mm above the bowl. The remaining 250mm was filled with NOTHING.

We now have a vacuum ! How can a vacuum exist if matter is continuous?

_______________________________________
The second indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), influenced by Torricelli's work took a 5 metre 'J' shaped tube with the short end sealed, and filled the long end with Mercury. As he continued to add Mercury the Air trapped in the short end continually grew smaller and smaller. By measuring the height of the Mercury Boyle found that the volume of the trapped gas varied inversely with the pressure applied.

Boyle came to the belief that matter consisted of tiny 'corpuscles'.

Gases can be compressed, perhaps liquids and solids can as well. How can this be if matter is continuous

_______________________________________
The third indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Antoine Lavoisier (1743 - 1794) accidently discovers that by mixing two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen he got something that appeared as 'pure as distilled water'.

At this point France was going through a ballooning phase and there was a demand for Hydrogen. Ergo, says Lavoisier, I can make it from water. Lavoisier percolated water through a gun barrel filled with hot iron rings. He made a very strange discovery. The water ALWAYS yielded Oxygen and Hydrogen in a ratio of eight to one. What was happening here.

What neat mechanism was at work here. Lavoisier didn't have much time to speculate before the French Revolution sent him to the guillotine in 1794. Before he departed he speculated that "some simple indivisible particles are at work in chemistry and we don't know much about them"

_______________________________________
The fourth indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

John Dalton (1766 - 1844) investigating Lavosier's work noted that the properties of gases can BEST be described by postulating atoms. Dalton realised that to make Carbon Monoxide (CO) one always needed 12 pounds of carbon and 16 pounds of oxygen, or 12 kilograms of carbon and 16 kilograms of oxygen. Whatever units he used the ratio was always 12:16.

Not a particularly strong argument for atoms. However if you make hydrogen-carbon compounds and hydrogen oxygen compounds the ratio is always 1 to 12 to 16. What other conclusion are you left with?

Bingo says Dalton, " I declare that the atom is the basic unit of the chemical element"

"....... led to the conclusion which seems universally adopted, that all bodies of sensible magnitude, whether liquid or solid, are constituted of a vast number of extremely small particles, or atoms of matter, bound together by a force of attraction, which is more or less powerful according to circumstances .... Chemistry goes no further than to organise the separation of particles, one from another, and their reunion. No new creation or destruction of matter is within the reach of chemical agency. We might as well attempt to introduce a new planet into the solar system, or to annihilate one already in existence.....

_________________________________________________

Dear Rascal ... according to any periodic table of the elements, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon the basis of all life on our planet measure in the ratios that Dalton discovered.

According to the proofs i have supplied, only one conclusion can be drawn. Matter consists of discrete properties.

How can this 'discrete' proof of the structure of matter - in which I have used no quantum descriptions whatsoever - be resolved with your theory of 'Gravity is the fourth Dimension' and its underlying foundation that all matter is continuous?


cool bananas ... greg

PS: Rascal you may as well take me on at 'space invaders' or 'shoot the asteriod' where I have just de-throned Michael . See the little colour icons under my Avatar, yesterday they were under Michaels, when he rashly stated that consciousness held the key ... ROTFLMAO

[MJA]

Hi Greg,

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused by making lite of what I believe is the uncertainty of science or measure. I ask for your help sincerely, because I have not the mathematical skills like you, to solve that complex equation. Again thank you. My purpose was only to show that once F was numerically known, that it had no use.

You suggest automobiles and chairs and ladders, as well as other man made tools are built with the knowledge of F=ma, I totally disagree. Is it not experience alone that builds and betters the things we make. Did not tables and chairs and ladders exist before Newton? Was a chariot built with the numerical equivence of F in mind? I believe the ant on the chariot wheel that you suggest is no different than the man driving it, they were hanging on for dear life, and hoping the wheels didn't fall off; no F in mind. If by chance they did crash, the wheels did fall off, and the ant and the man lived to see another day, both will think twice about riding a chariot again. And what of the evolution of the chariot? Was F involved? The chariot maker was probably killed for his F lawed workmanship, and his son built the next chariot a little stronger.

Chariots have advanced to today's automobile, which you claim exist via the knowledge of F. Is that why we collide brand new vehicles full of dummies into brick walls. Because there is certainty in numerical F? Is it not the test of truth called experience that alone advances the tools we build ,as well as nature itself. Does not nature advance via experience alone? Is not experience evolution? Does any other part of nature besides man use uncertain numerical equations to evolve, or are we it. Is that the problem??? Is that the uncertainty??? Is that the humor of it all???

And what about the certainty of weight or m to computate F? We used the weight of the Earth and moon to calculate F, are you certain of those measurements? Lets bring m a little closer to home. How much do you weigh? Does it not vary from scale to scale, from day to day, from minute to minute?
Which scale would you use, the one in the bathroom, or the one at the doctors office? Would after dinner or before dinner give you the certainty of your own m? We claim to know with certainty the weight of Earth, of the moon, yet can we be certain of our own weight, can we? Certainty is truth isn't it? That is what brings us here, to the quest for TOE!

We have discussed what others might do with F, but my question was, what will you do with the knowledge of F? I ask you because I believe you an expert on the science of physics. I am not. Perhaps if someone, anyone, could show me the certainty of measure or science, then through that experience I might evolve into a more truthful being. And with your help in truth, know TOE.

As far as wondering away from "The causal Identity of Gravity", The truth of F is the Truth of G is The truth of TOE is the truth of truth. We are on the true path and have not gone astray.

Thanks again,
And hope that clarified my purpose,

MJA

[austintorn@aol.com]

(I was in the Himalayan mountains with R.P., saying
“Hello Dali”, but have now come back down to earth).


WE ARE MOST FREE WHEN
WE ARE ASYMPTOTICALLY CO-JOINED


The strong family unit, as the three quarks
Is bonded by the power of its grouping,
But loses identity if the home breaks—
Other pairs soon forming of divorcing.

Then comes the prison of solitude—
Chained to isolation and fortitude,
Floating, lost, without effects of affects,
Losing the identity conferred by others.

Within the nucleus, gentleness becomes strength,
For the members are free to explore at length,
Never smothering, but building unity,
The unit’s direction adding to the one.

The strong force grows weaker near the quarks,
And so we may observe them someday,
Shining in their primordial glory—
The beginning of all things composite.

Identity is not lost by the co-joining—
True loves don’t crowd the hearts of the others,
But, rather, look outward, in the same direction,
Close, joined, but not in each other’s section.

It is a seeming arithmetic violation,
That in summation we become greater;
We don’t merge, having supported freedom,
Yet still share the same good vibration.

Love matures when partners let it flow beyond—
Free to wend its way to places dear and fond.
Love’s butterfly prospers when winds blow free;
Unconditional love never binds—it bonds.


(Not completely rhyming, but enough to suffice.
To get full rhyme is tough, unless one picks
Rhymes first from a rhyming dictionary,
And composes many short poems on anything,
Later combining the like ones and arranging
The quatrains into a longer poem;
But my collection of strong-force-quark poems
Was in low supply, but, anyway, this
Is the secret of poetry for me,
Although this time I had to wing it,
as with most of the scientific stuff.)