Gravity

[thinkandmull]

Let me see if I understand gravity correctly. So you’re telling me if I lean on the object in the universe with the greatest mass, I would move everything in the universe?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let me see if I understand gravity correctly. So you’re telling me if I lean on the object in the universe with the greatest mass, I would move everything in the universe?

Thinking and mulling but it doesn’t help. What are you trying to say?

Linus2nd

 

[dmar198]

Let me see if I understand gravity correctly. So you’re telling me if I lean on the object in the universe with the greatest mass, I would move everything in the universe?

Based on my limited understanding of the current consensus of modern science, I think the correct answer is: yes, but not noticeably.

If you even approached the thing with the most mass, you would be drawn toward it and it would be drawn toward you, but your mass is so much less that it would not noticeably move and you would be almost instantly crushed. The rest of the universe would probably not notice a change, except people who knew you, who would be saddened by your sudden, permanent absence.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well the earth isn’t pulled up towards me, right? It also just seems weird to me that heaviness isn’t really an inherent property of matter. If one wants to hold on to the idea that matter has a natural heaviness to it, one would have to argue that there is a force that keeps falling objects falling at a certain speed (objects that natural fall at the speed from the weight of their mass would be unaffected by this force). Is that a viable option?

 

[thinkandmull]

Linus, if gravity is true and things have natural mass but not weight, then things appear heavy because of the force of objects with greater mass, and that by something with greater mass, ect ect. Until you reach that which has greatest mass, but which would have no weight, unless you believe the series goes on to infinity…

 

[Timothysis]

Linus, if gravity is true

Are you suggesting that all of the theories and explanations of gravity since Newton are not true?

 

[on_the_hill]

Well the earth isn’t pulled up towards me, right?

Actually, I think it is. But I’m not a physicist.

 

[dmar198]

Well the earth isn’t pulled up towards me, right?

My understanding is: yes, it is, we just don’t notice it because it’s mass is so much more than we are. This physics article says: “Every object in the universe with mass attracts every other object with mass.” Assuming that article reflects modern scientific consensus, it makes sense to me that the earth is pulled toward you (and everyone else), but humans have so little mass that nobody notices. (Plus, people on the other side of the world are counteracting our pull. Not to mention trees, water, the oceans – all that stuff on one side of the planet is counteracting the pull of similar stuff on the other side of the planet. Humanity probably factors in at a itty bitty tiny pull, compared to the other stuff that’s on/part of our planet.)

It also just seems weird to me that heaviness isn’t really an inherent property of matter.

You’re a little beyond me, now. I thought heaviness was another word for mass?

If one wants to hold on to the idea that matter has a natural heaviness to it, one would have to argue that there is a force that keeps falling objects falling at a certain speed (objects that natural fall at the speed from the weight of their mass would be unaffected by this force). Is that a viable option?

No clue, sorry.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well the earth isn’t pulled up towards me, right? It also just seems weird to me that heaviness isn’t really an inherent property of matter. If one wants to hold on to the idea that matter has a natural heaviness to it, one would have to argue that there is a force that keeps falling objects falling at a certain speed (objects that natural fall at the speed from the weight of their mass would be unaffected by this force). Is that a viable option?

Gravitational force involves an acceleration measure, g, due to gravity so that the falling object does not fall at a fixed speed, but the speed increases with time by the equation: v=-gt.

 

[GEddie]

Let me see if I understand gravity correctly. So you’re telling me if I lean on the object in the universe with the greatest mass, I would move everything in the universe?

You couldn’t do that, because “leaning” implies three bodies: you; the object being leaned on; and the surface under your feet (normally the surface of the Earth, but could be the deck of a ship or aircraft, etc, which are resting on the fluid layers of the Earth).

Without all three bodies there could be no leaning. You could throw yourself into the largest body in the universe, and the (insignificant) change of its mass would affect all other masses (insignificantly); but you would reduce at once to human goo.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[thinkandmull]

To me it is almost a slap in the face of Creation to say that weight isn’t a natural inherent property of matter. I’ve always felt that things fall when their is nothing holding them up, not because there are superimposed forces working against it. The human body especially seems less beautiful if you say it is palpable but not heavy in itself. That’s at least how I feel about it

 

[GEddie]

Well the earth isn’t pulled up towards me, right? It also just seems weird to me that heaviness isn’t really an inherent property of matter. If one wants to hold on to the idea that matter has a natural heaviness to it, one would have to argue that there is a force that keeps falling objects falling at a certain speed (objects that natural fall at the speed from the weight of their mass would be unaffected by this force). Is that a viable option?

The earth is pulled up toward you. Just as your feet press down into the earth (hence footprints), the earth presses up on your feet (which is why we have thick feetskin, to absorb that pressure).

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tomdstone]

To me it is almost a slap in the face of Creation to say that weight isn’t a natural inherent property of matter. I’ve always felt that things fall when their is nothing holding them up, not because there are superimposed forces working against it. The human body especially seems less beautiful if you say it is palpable but not heavy in itself. That’s at least how I feel about it

Your weight on the moon is 1/6 of your weight on earth. The weight of an object is not fixed but will depend on where you are.

 

[GEddie]

To me it is almost a slap in the face of Creation to say that weight isn’t a natural inherent property of matter. I’ve always felt that things fall when their is nothing holding them up, not because there are superimposed forces working against it. The human body especially seems less beautiful if you say it is palpable but not heavy in itself. That’s at least how I feel about it

Heaviness is not intrinsic to our bodies, or to matter generally, except in a constant gravity.

In free-fall you would not feel heavy; your head would float on your neck; your hands would float upward instead of hanging at your sides. But inertia is unchanged.

So while you could “lift” a grand-piano in free-fall, it would move very slowly if pushed. And your body, if you pushed off of it, would move much faster.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Usagi]

To me it is almost a slap in the face of Creation to say that weight isn’t a natural inherent property of matter. I’ve always felt that things fall when their is nothing holding them up, not because there are superimposed forces working against it. The human body especially seems less beautiful if you say it is palpable but not heavy in itself. That’s at least how I feel about it

Gotta go with the last few posters, here. We literally, experientially know that weight is not absolute. I personally have been on “Gravitron” rides that use acceleration to simulate increased gravity, tripling my felt weight. Plus, of course, all those astronauts floating about in orbit or jumping on the moon.

Mass (and therefore inertia) is still an inherent property of matter, though.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

Linus, if gravity is true and things have natural mass but not weight, then things appear heavy because of the force of objects with greater mass, and that by something with greater mass, ect ect. Until you reach that which has greatest mass, but which would have no weight, unless you believe the series goes on to infinity…

Well, yeah. The entire universe contains a lot of mass, but can’t meaningfully be said to have weight, because there’s not anything else affecting the entire universe with gravity.

Also, as others have pointed out, gravity doesn’t require a linear progression of greater and greater mass. Everything with mass attracts everything else; the effect is just more noticeable on the object of lesser mass, and WAY more noticeable the closer together the two masses are. The Earth attracts you AND you attract the Earth, but the Earth’s mass is so much greater than yours that it is not going to fall noticeably towards you.

You seem to be investing far too much value and emotion into the concept of weight.

Usagi

 

[thinkandmull]

Instead of gravity, there could be astral forces pulling the astronauts up on the moon.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, if gravity is true and things have natural mass but not weight, then things appear heavy because of the force of objects with greater mass, and that by something with greater mass, ect ect. Until you reach that which has greatest mass, but which would have no weight, unless you believe the series goes on to infinity…

An infinite mass is a contradiction in terms. All created, material things are, by definition, limited by the fact that they are material. Therefore they cannot be infinite in any way.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Usagi]

Instead of gravity, there could be astral forces pulling the astronauts up on the moon.

There could be any combination of factors that yields the same reality we observe, sure – including an individual angel for every creature and object that pulls it back down to earth (or the moon, or whatever its current “down” is) under the appropriate conditions. But why postulate a complicated interaction of forces when a single force proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them suffices? Merely because you feel that weight-on-earth should be an essential property of matter?

Usagi

 

[thinkandmull]

An infinite mass is a contradiction in terms. All created, material things are, by definition, limited by the fact that they are material. Therefore they cannot be infinite in any way.

Pax
Linus2nd

There are actually paradoxes here. One can imagine infinite space, but in contradiction cannot see it filled with anything (infinite object, like a cellphone). Matter is infinitely divisible, but does not add up to an infinite size. When one walks there are infinite half way points he must travel, yet the distance is finite. You believe Aquinas with regard to the rational possibility of an eternal universe, but how could it get to now if it took an eternity to pass thru former time? All these, and other such arguments, cannot be answered to our satisfaction. So there is no way to know whether our universe is on top of, and likewise under, an infinite number of universes. The human mind is not equipped to get into the area of infinity, apart from spirituality…