Gravity

[Tomdstone]

When one walks there are infinite half way points he must travel,…

I don’t think so because the ground is discrete, composed of atoms. You only cover a finite number of atoms as you walk.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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…

I disagree that matter is infinitely divisible. This is a projection of a mathematical concept on to matter. If one were to actually attempt to divide a steel rod ad infinitum what would happen is that one would soon be down to ultimate realities like strong and weak forces, gravity, and electromagnetic forces, and I think you will find that these cannot be divided, at least it seems very unlikely. So, in my opinion, division of any physical reality ad infinitum is an impossibility. I think what happens is that we eventually come close to what Aristotle called Prime Matter, from which all physical reality is some how composed. But the odd thing is that we cannot actually reach Prime Matter, at least in Aristotle’s view, because it never exists by itself, it always exists as the ultimate substrata of all physical things.

As far as eternal creation is concerned, one should not confuse that with infinity. God is continually begetting the Son. He does this eternally. In the same way he could be eternally creating the universe. So there is no contradiction. Thomas does not go into any details about how God might do this, he merely says that, if the world was eternal, it would require an eternal act of creation on God’s part. And that would be out of nothing but not in time. Of course Thomas did not believe that this actually happened because he believed, in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church, that God created the universe in time, out of nothing.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Matter can be infinitely divisible with it being possible to actually divide with human powers. If it is not infinitely divisible, it would be composed of atoms or whatever of ZERO spatial reality, which means that zero plus zero equals one. That doesn’t make sense

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Matter can be infinitely divisible with it being possible to actually divide with human powers. If it is not infinitely divisible, it would be composed of atoms or whatever of ZERO spatial reality, which means that zero plus zero equals one. That doesn’t make sense

We will just have to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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

Don’t confuse weight 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?

Falling objects may accelerate at a certain rate with their speed increasing as the result of the acceleration. Here on earth the maximum speed will be limited by resistance from air (or water, in the case of dropping something into a body of water).

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.

Another way of expressing the same thing:

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/formulaimages/83/gravity-formula-image.PNG

 

[thinkandmull]

We will just have to disagree.

Linus2nd

I don’t know how we could infinitely divide something, but Aquinas and Aristotle believe its thusly divisible by nature, though together, not divided. You can’t argue its divisible potentially only, because the parts that would be so potentially are there in existence actually. The human mind thinks of this as either this way or that. Reality is far different than that in some areas. Infinity can only be thought of as definite and indefinite. For example, do all even numbers equal all odd plus even numbers?

 

[Tomdstone]

Matter can be infinitely divisible with it being possible to actually divide with human powers. If it is not infinitely divisible, it would be composed of atoms or whatever of ZERO spatial reality, which means that zero plus zero equals one. That doesn’t make sense

I disagree that zero plus zero equals one. To make a statement like that indicates that there is something terribly wrong in your reasoning.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know how we could infinitely divide something, but Aquinas and Aristotle believe its thusly divisible by nature, though together, not divided. You can’t argue its divisible potentially only, because the parts that would be so potentially are there in existence actually. The human mind thinks of this as either this way or that. Reality is far different than that in some areas. Infinity can only be thought of as definite and indefinite. For example, do all even numbers equal all odd plus even numbers?

I am an Arostotelian/Thomist and I know what they taught. But they did not live in our scientific age. If you attempt to divide an actual body you will eventually get down to ultimate forms of matter which are different from what you started with. Therefore you cannot divide a body infinitely and still be dealing with the same body. That is simple science.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say zero plus zero equals one. Linus is saying that zero space plus zero space equals one. As Aristotle says in his Physics “how can non-substance be prior to substance?” That’s fine though, because the whole question doesn’t make sense to our minds

 

[thinkandmull]

Take for example a right triangle. All the points on the side opposite the right angle can be connected with a straight line to those of either of the other sides. Thus infinity equals infinity, but the problem is the hypotenuse is longer than either of the other sides, so its infinity should be greater. The world is very different than our minds’ understand

 

[Tomdstone]

I didn’t say zero plus zero equals one.

Here’s what you said:

Matter can be infinitely divisible with it being possible to actually divide with human powers. If it is not infinitely divisible, it would be composed of atoms or whatever of ZERO spatial reality, which means that zero plus zero equals one.

First of all it is not true that zero plus zero equals one.
Secondly, it is possible that matter is not infinitely divisible, but composed of indivisible quanta.

 

[Tomdstone]

Take for example a right triangle. All the points on the side opposite the right angle can be connected with a straight line to those of either of the other sides. Thus infinity equals infinity, but the problem is the hypotenuse is longer than either of the other sides, so its infinity should be greater. The world is very different than our minds’ understand

In the case of the real mathematical line, the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than the length of a side, but the infinity is not greater. The number of points on the hypotenuse is exactly the same as the number of points on the side. To understand this elementary mathematical question, you need only to apply concepts from Cantor’s theorem and from Lebesque measure.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I didn’t say zero plus zero equals one. Linus is saying that zero space plus zero space equals one. As Aristotle says in his Physics “how can non-substance be prior to substance?” That’s fine though, because the whole question doesn’t make sense to our minds

I didn’t say that or anything like it. How do you figure that I did?

Linus2nd

 

[magnet]

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.

What does “would move much faster” refer to.

In free fall toward the Earth, both you and the piano would be falling at the same rate. If you are trying to push the piano horizontally away from you, it is a matter of horizontal inertia. Since the piano would have much greater mass than you, its inertia would be greater and your effort to push the piano away from you is more an action of pushing your body away from the piano.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What does “would move much faster” refer to.

In free fall toward the Earth, both you and the piano would be falling at the same rate. If you are trying to push the piano horizontally away from you, it is a matter of horizontal inertia. Since the piano would have much greater mass than you, its inertia would be greater and your effort to push the piano away from you is more an action of pushing your body away from the piano.

There is no difference between pushing the piano away from ones body and pushing ones body away from the oiano. Both the piano and ones body will be moved by the push. The amount that the person’s body and the piano are accelerated by the push can be found through an application of F=m*a. Or, to solve for a, use the former a=F/m.

F = force
m = mass
a = acceleration

The equation shows that an object of higher mass will not be accelerated as much by the same force. If a 200 pound person were to push against a 600 pound mass (ignoring wind resistence) the person would accelerate at a rate 3 times higher than the weight.

 

[Cone]

All objects have gravity and their gravity is proportional to their mass. The greater the mass, the greater its gravitational pull will be on other objects, and the greater will be the acceleration of those objects toward it. Yes, your body exerts an upward pull on the earth, but it’s negligible.

 

[thinkandmull]

Here’s what you said:
First of all it is not true that zero plus zero equals one.
Secondly, it is possible that matter is not infinitely divisible, but composed of indivisible quanta.

Its obvious I meant to say “Matter can be infinitely divisible withOUT it being possible to actually divide with human powers.” And I said “If it is not infinitely divisible, it would be composed of atoms or whatever of ZERO spatial reality, which means that zero plus zero equals one. That doesn’t make sense” I can’t make it clearer that it was linus, not me, who says that zero space plus zero space equals one.

 

[thinkandmull]

In the case of the real mathematical line, the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than the length of a side, but the infinity is not greater. The number of points on the hypotenuse is exactly the same as the number of points on the side. To understand this elementary mathematical question, you need only to apply concepts from Cantor’s theorem and from Lebesque measure.

If the line is longer, there are more points. Where does my reasoning go wrong?

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say that or anything like it. How do you figure that I did?

Linus2nd

You said that there are indivisible atoms, which means that have no space. If they have space, they have a this and a that part, and are not thus indivisible. Aquinas and Arostitle never said the impossible task of infinitely dividing matter could occur, but that space has infinite halves. It seems like you don’t see the paradox here. I’ve mediated and read about it for years, and its just a simple mystery

 

[thinkandmull]

All objects have gravity and their gravity is proportional to their mass. The greater the mass, the greater its gravitational pull will be on other objects, and the greater will be the acceleration of those objects toward it. Yes, your body exerts an upward pull on the earth, but it’s negligible.

I thought gravity means that the acceleration of objects is always the same? BTW, the object of this thread was whether gravity can be proven to be a real thing…