Does gravity have mass?

[Wildgraywolf]

Does gravity have mass?

Sounds like a paradox…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think it’s wrong to idolize.

Aristotle thought that objects are animated (heavy objects fall fastest due to their greater desire to reach the center of the Earth, and objects slow down of their own accord unless being acted on). Galileo was by no means the first to question this, but was the first to show precisely that objects are inert.

" Desire " was used metaphorically as he made clear. He meant that by nature the heavy had a propensity to go down and the light had a natural propensity to go up. Read it again. Thomas explains the meaning in his commentary.

Not really. If we only knew the properties of protons, neutrons and electrons, I think we would not be able to predict the possible existence of petroleum and its properties, even though it is made from them. The rule instead seems to be “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (which is Aristotle in one of his clearer moments).

You missed the point because of your natural repugnance to A and TA. Gee, no one surpasses you for cutting remarks. I’ll give you that.

I don’t see the point of trying to shoehorn a medieval worldview into modern science, it just makes everything more complicated and adds unnecessary baggage. If we are interested in how the heavens go, it’s just confusing to heap in all the wrong ideas that long ago got disproved.

No one is shoehorning anything. If a substance has no essence or nature, it will have no characteristic structure, behavior, or habits. You would not be able to tell a horse from a rock becuase they are composed of the same basic elements. Scienc assumes but ignores the nature of a substance.

It’s not casting aspersions. Science works a lot better than magic, period. Otherwise we’d all go to magicians when we’re ill. I can’t believe you’re trying to argue this, are you at a loss for anything else to do today?

A good " slider, " but your aim was clear.

Linus2nd

 

[pnewton]

I will hope that someone with a PhD can jump on and explain where I am right or wrong, but I thought gravity has mass. I was under the impression that the accumulated mass from the gravitational force of the sun, under Einstein’s theory of general relativity was what accounted for the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury, thus providing evidence against the hypothetical planet Vulcan.

I think I may have gotten my wires crossed. I think now that it was the mass of the magnetic field, not the electrical field that initiated the theory of Vulcan.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As I keep saying, flat earthers are also baffled that anyone could possibly think differently to them.

Oh, oh, back to the ad hominems again. But whose baffled, not me.

The internet is full of wrong ideas. Reading wrong ideas narrows the mind imho.

Glad to hear it.

Yes of course I read the original. What’s the point of reading blogs? Is it you who likes Fesser’s blog? I don’t read any blogs. Reading blogs dulls the mind imho.

I’m not against blogs. Fesser’s is pretty good.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

Brave words. What the experiment disagrees with is that it ignores the nature of things. It gets you from A to Z but that does not explain nature.

For centuries people thought Euclidean geometry was the only kind. But no, there are more things in heaven and earth, Euclid, than are dreamt of in your geometry.

And that is the world we live in.

Have a look here, it talks about the geometry - pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

Beyond me. Glad its crystal clear to you and the other genius here. I’ll stick with Newton.

The curving of spacetime explains gravity. Perfectly.

That doesn’t answer my questions. It is a simple evasion.

So now you’re questioning E = mc[sup]2[/sup] ? Does that mean that as A & TA didn’t predict mass/energy equivalence either, you’re now an atom bomb denier as well?

No. I am questioning the meaning atteched to it. Of course A and TA had no knowledge of such things. I don’t deny the bomb, I deny the meaning attached to it. It definitely works. That doesn’t mean it explains nature itself. Has it never occurred to you that something can work while we remain ignorant as to actually how? Does that mean we have to redefine nature? Not in my book.

Bomb denier , you are in rare form today.

Holy Here We Go Again Batman!

I gave you a thought experiment earlier, about how, if light had mass, the earth would be getting heavier from being bathed in sunlight every day. Seems you forgot to answer that. I wonder why?

Who says we don’t? How about my questions?

Linus2nd

 

[LogisticsBranch]

NASA states:

1. “Gravity - the force by which a planet or other body tends to draw objects toward its center.”
2. “The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun.”

nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Gravity.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

Photons have mass.
Gravity has mass.
If they did not have the mass then they would not be able to transfer energy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is a link to a video by Dr. Anthony Rizzi having a discussion with Doug Keck of EWTN about a children’s book in physics he has written. The reason I am linking it is to let everyone get to know Dr. Rizzi who is a Noble Prize winner in Physics and who is a Catholic and who is a good Thomist. He is also the head of the Institute for Advanced Physics which he founded. I don’t know if he would agree with all that I have said but the important thing is that he is able to show how even physicists can and should know something about basic philosophy as interpreted by Aristitole and Thomas Aquinas.

bing.com/videos/search?q=Anthony+rizzi&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=385D222A34A4058A5A8A385D222A34A4058A5A8A

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

P.S. iapweb.org/ Institute for Advanced Physics

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas was known as the philosopher of common sense. I am happy to learn that there are also qualified scientists of common sense. I refer to Dr. T. Van Flandern ( RIP ). Admitedly he goes against the common opinions of most modern physicists in the physical interpretation of space-time.

" [Excerpt from T. Van Flandern (2002), “Does gravity have inertia?”, Meta Research Bulletin 11, 49-53.]

        Some relativists may argue that “space-time” is not simply space plus time, but a higher-level concept that includes the notion of “time”, so the physical principles do not apply. However, the physical principles arise from logic alone and should be immutable, in contrast to the laws of physics, which can change as knowledge improves *]. Moreover, “space-time” is a mathematical concept, which amounts to a fancy way of referring to proper time in relativity (the time kept by perfect clocks), and does not involve any curvature of space. To show this, consider the following mathematical and physical arguments... "

So if space does not curve, neither does time and, per force, light bends due to gravity, which means that light must have mass. Nice to know I am not alone. And just to keep things interesting, he quotes Tesla’s famous quip to the effect that " space does not curve. "
It is nice to know one may be " odd " and still be correct!!

You can view the link.

metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp*

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To sum up then.

Space is safe because it does not bend, indeed, how could it, since it is not a substance.

Time is safe because it does not bend, indeed, how could it, since it is not a substance.

Photons have mass since they are substances.

Gravity is safe because it attracts all masses, even photons. and causes streams of photons to bend…

Gravity does not have mass, it is an unknown power by which all masses are attracted to each other. ( Could gravity be the hand of God at work guiding the universe? A purely rethorical thought, but a very interesting one.)

Common sense, you see.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I am happy to learn that there are also qualified scientists of common sense. I refer to Dr. T. Van Flandern ( RIP ). Admitedly he goes against the common opinions of most modern physicists in the physical interpretation of space-time.

So if space does not curve, neither does time and, per force, light bends due to gravity, which means that light must have mass. Nice to know I am not alone. And just to keep things interesting, he quotes Tesla’s famous quip to the effect that " space does not curve. "!

Thanks, that guy is hilariously kooky. Apparently he became disenchanted at the lack of interest in his notion of exploding planets. He reckoned humans come from Mars, which used to be a moon of an exploded planet. That comets and asteroids come from another exploded planet. That various bits of landscape on Mars were carved by extra-terrestrials from another exploded planet.

I love it. Where’s his evidence? Oh sorry, it exploded, all gone. Just take his word for it.

Another of his many kooky ideas was that gravity comes from “a flux of invisible ultra-mundane corpuscles”. Limitless energy! Perpetual motion!

(sources for above: the website you linked and Wikipedia)

I still can’t decide whether it’s all a prank for comedic value, or whether he was serious. Anyway, RIP oh strange doctor.

I’m assuming you weren’t taken in. You weren’t were you?

PS: I didn’t think there was anything left to say on your other points so shout if I didn’t answer anything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks, that guy is hilariously kooky. Apparently he became disenchanted at the lack of interest in his notion of exploding planets. He reckoned humans come from Mars, which used to be a moon of an exploded planet. That comets and asteroids come from another exploded planet. That various bits of landscape on Mars were carved by extra-terrestrials from another exploded planet.

I love it. Where’s his evidence? Oh sorry, it exploded, all gone. Just take his word for it.

Another of his many kooky ideas was that gravity comes from “a flux of invisible ultra-mundane corpuscles”. Limitless energy! Perpetual motion!

(sources for above: the website you linked and Wikipedia)

I still can’t decide whether it’s all a prank for comedic value, or whether he was serious. Anyway, RIP oh strange doctor.

I’m assuming you weren’t taken in. You weren’t were you?

PS: I didn’t think there was anything left to say on your other points so shout if I didn’t answer anything.

At least you looked. Certainly many of his ideas were not mainstream. He admitted that. But that does not mean everything he advocated is beyond reason. And he certainly had excellent credentials. I for one am willing to give credit where credit is due.

I see you still can’t resist insulting people and casting aspersions. If you disagree, fine, just say so. It is poor taste to ridicule people - and I realize how irresistable it can be. Nevertheless, try to rise above the temptation. You know, the " sticks and stones rhyme " is not quite true.

Linus2nd

 

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning math, does Hawking hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

Are make it a little more general, what percent, if that is possible, of the Big Bang scientists hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

If so, do they address from where the math originated?

THANKS!

 

[Bahman]

Concerning math, does Hawking hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

Are make it a little more general, what percent, if that is possible, of the Big Bang scientists hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

If so, do they address from where the math originated?

THANKS!

Universe works in a very systematic way that can be explained by laws of nature which are a set of mathematical equations.

Mathematics is the result of abstraction of intellect which is consistent.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Bahman

From where do the Big Bang proponents think the system of laws came?

Was there a BEING that caused the “incorporating” of the math that we abstract?

In your understanding, does Hawking think that math runs the universe?

If so, from where did that math come?

THANKS!!!

 

[Bahman]

Bahman

From where do the Big Bang proponents think the system of laws came?

They claim that it is intrinsic.

Was there a BEING that caused the “incorporating” of the math that we abstract?

Yes if it is not part of nature of existence hence you need a being that sustain universe and No if it is a part of nature of existence namely, it is intrinsic. No one can prove or disprove otherwise.

In your understanding, does Hawking think that math runs the universe?

No. Math doesn’t run the universe. Universe just work in a systematic way that can be explained by math. If you like you can say that there exist a mathematical framework which can explain universe. Things just behaves based on their on accord which is systematic.

If so, from where did that math come?

THANKS!!!

They say that the systematic behavior of universe is intrinsic hence the question that where this intrinsic behavior come from is irrelevant.

 

[inocente]

I see you still can’t resist insulting people and casting aspersions. If you disagree, fine, just say so. It is poor taste to ridicule people - and I realize how irresistable it can be. Nevertheless, try to rise above the temptation. You know, the " sticks and stones rhyme " is not quite true.

How dare you sirrah, I didn’t insult him, I said he’s a terrific comedian.

Satire is an accepted way to puncture authority. But I think authority figures are not appropriate in science anyway. Theories should stand or fall on the evidence. That’s the whole basis of science. So when someone calls himself a scientist and puts forward a theory, but the evidence all got mysteriously blown up and disappeared, he’s not doing science.

I’d never heard of him so googled and saw his checkered history. His argument relies on a theory I’ve never heard of either, so I googled and found it had been disproved a long long time ago.

His main interest, at least in that paper, seemed to be don’t worry too much about checking it out, make it sound good. Which is fine in politics and advocacy, but truth isn’t about hit parades. Imho.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Fenyman

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How dare you sirrah, I didn’t insult him, I said he’s a terrific comedian.

Satire is an accepted way to puncture authority. But I think authority figures are not appropriate in science anyway. Theories should stand or fall on the evidence. That’s the whole basis of science. So when someone calls himself a scientist and puts forward a theory, but the evidence all got mysteriously blown up and disappeared, he’s not doing science.

I’d never heard of him so googled and saw his checkered history. His argument relies on a theory I’ve never heard of either, so I googled and found it had been disproved a long long time ago.

His main interest, at least in that paper, seemed to be don’t worry too much about checking it out, make it sound good. Which is fine in politics and advocacy, but truth isn’t about hit parades. Imho.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Fenyman

My, my, comptemptuous as well. Well, every dog to his bone. I can’t judge his " theory " since those things are admittely beyond my kin. But he had a PhD in Astrophysics and was employed in the field for some time. And since I don’t understand the physics and math of the various modes of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I acknowledge that they work, but reject the various interpretations offered as to their reliability as an explanation of the nature of things like space, time, light, and gravity. And since I don’t follow anyone’s parade, it makes no difference to me what the religion, ethnicity, etc. of the one making the interpretations.

Contrary to your rash judgment (to which you are so often prone ) I did not cite him as an authority figure but as a qualified kindred spirit . And speaking of authority figures, you yourself often make use of them. So, good for the goose but not the gander?

Cheers

Linus2nd

 

[Jim_Baur]

They claim that it is intrinsic.

They say that the systematic behavior of universe is intrinsic hence the question that where this intrinsic behavior come from is irrelevant.

This does not make sense to me, in my opinion.

What does it sound like to you? (If you would like to give your ideas, thanks)

 

[Richca]

Concerning math, does Hawking hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

Are make it a little more general, what percent, if that is possible, of the Big Bang scientists hold the idea that math runs the physical universe?

If so, do they address from where the math originated?

THANKS!

Hi Jim,
I do not know what Hawking’s holds, but I would say that mathematics and mathematical equations do not run anything. Science uses mathematics and mathematical equations to explain the behavior of real things. Though mathematics and its equations may have a foundation in reality and often times does, they have no existence in the external world but only in the human mind. For example, where in the external world does the number 2 exist? Similarly, Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² has no existence in the external world but only in the intellect. What does have existence in the external world is energy, mass, and light.

Mathematical physics abstracts from material things only that which can be quantified and thus it does not study the whole of reality for there are many aspects of reality that are qualitative and which cannot be quantified. Even the very idea of law is unquantifiable though physics likes to speak about laws of nature. Or can a mathematical equation be written for what truth or falsity are, or morals, virtues such as justice, temperance, fortitude, honesty, or what vice or sin are; or what spirit is, or intellect, will or love or other emotions, or God.