On the surface of a sphere, the only reference to up or down is pointing away or toward its center. So people standing on the surface of the earth, have the same ups and downs everywhere. There is no absolute up or down in space.At the Fall, the static of the world went fuzzy maybe and everything turned into something else. Use your imagination. Its unnatural to have people under you walking upside down thinking they walking right side up when in reality everyone is side ways! lol
This assumes centrifugal force (to counter gravity) did not exist either.I am deeply interested in learning about the experimental proofs for gravity. I believe at least in the Garden of Eden heaviness was an essential quality of things, not a force added to it…
Your usage of the word heavy isn’t clear. I am not sure what you are asking people to imagine in the above since it’s based on your less than clear usage of the word “heavy.”You guys can’t use your imaginations to think of a world in which things fall because they are naturally heavy??
Interestingly enough if a body with the mass of the earth existed in a disc configuration the force of gravity would pull things towards the center of that disc. If someone were to try to walk to the edge she would be at risk of tripping and falling back to the center. If she reached the edge there would be no risk of falling off into space; the force of gravity would still be pulling her towards the center.I believe that the entire universe completely changed after the fall, that the world was probably even flat before it
I doubt that a disk shaped earth could suddenly transform itself into a sphere because someone was disobedient.Your usage of the word heavy isn’t clear. I am not sure what you are asking people to imagine in the above since it’s based on your less than clear usage of the word “heavy.”
Interestingly enough if a body with the mass of the earth existed in a disc configuration the force of gravity would pull things towards the center of that disc. If someone were to try to walk to the edge she would be at risk of tripping and falling back to the center. If she reached the edge there would be no risk of falling off into space; the force of gravity would still be pulling her towards the center.
I am with you. I am not even sure what information is being saught in this thread anymore.I doubt that a disk shaped earth could suddenly transform itself into a sphere because someone was disobedient.
The firmament is a dome.On the surface of a sphere, the only reference to up or down is pointing away or toward its center. So people standing on the surface of the earth, have the same ups and downs everywhere. There is no absolute up or down in space.
Is heaven in the sky everywhere? Then heaven is spherical in configuration. Before the Fall, heaven must have been flat.
The concept of a firmament originated a few thousand years ago. Science tells us today that the original concept of a firmament is obsolete.The firmament is a dome.
When I first learned about gravity when I was young it was a huge mental change. I couldn’t believe that things don’t fall because they are heavy. I guess everyone else have just been so accustomed to the modern view that they can’t see what Aristotle and I think is natural. See ye on another thread
Heaviness is a relative concept. An object may be heavy on Earth but it is not as heavy on the Moon. Under what conditions does an object lose its heaviness? Is there a discrete entity called heaviness which instantly changes to non-heaviness at a certain threshold value?My point was just that the original earth could have been flat, with a spherical finite sky, before the quantum leap of the Fall
And you fit the nail on the head. I don’t think I believe heaviness is relative. There could forces pulling and releasing the astronauts on the moon.
While not impossible in terms of the power of God to accomplish things, that’s not something we can ever know, since the present universe is so different. Since evil can only warp and not create, though, it would seem unlikely that the majority of the present universe came into being as a result of the Fall rather than of God’s creative act.My point was just that the original earth could have been flat, with a spherical finite sky, before the quantum leap of the Fall
This is the part I don’t understand. You are fine with there being external forces acting on objects (and altering their effective weight) everywhere but here, but the idea that the same applies to Earth is repugnant to you? Is it not sufficient that mass is an inherent property of matter, while what we call weight comes from the interactions between multiple masses?And you fit the nail on the head. I don’t think I believe heaviness is relative. There could forces pulling and releasing the astronauts on the moon.
My favourite reference is a book simply titled “Orbital Mechanics.” The first part of the book is about nothing but gravity and for the rest of the book gravity is always a force to consider.Anybody serious about studying gravity should read this:
theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/emnature.pdf
But that’s NOT unnatural if you and the other people are living on the surface of a sphere!At the Fall, the static of the world went fuzzy maybe and everything turned into something else. Use your imagination. Its unnatural to have people under you walking upside down thinking they walking right side up when in reality everyone is side ways! lol
Kopernicky suggests that that the attractive forces between twoAnybody serious about studying gravity should read this:
theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/emnature.pdf
No. The problem is that you assume a general gravitational force that would make it possible for you to ‘lean against’ the greatest mass in the universe. There would be no leaning. You would be sucked in from millions of miles and quashed down to the size of an atom, or smaller. And then you might be spit out as radiation.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?
Read the book and then we can discuss it.Kopernicky suggests that that the attractive forces between two
uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
forces and that this difference is the cause of gravitation.
This was an idea suggested earlier by AEPINUS, FRANZ ULRICH THEODOR (1724-1802).
It is difficult to see why this difference would cause gravity because there are serious differences between EM fields and gravitational fields:
Electric and magnetic fields can be generated in the lab by moving charges; gravity can’t.
Gravity is a much weaker force than EM.
Magnetism only affects certain types of materials; gravity is produced by, and affects, all types of materials.
Gravity only attracts; magnetism/electricity attracts and repels.
Gravity can’t be shielded; magnetism/electricity can.
For example:Kopernicky suggests that that the attractive forces between two
uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive
forces and that this difference is the cause of gravitation.
This was an idea suggested earlier by AEPINUS, FRANZ ULRICH THEODOR (1724-1802).
It is difficult to see why this difference would cause gravity because there are serious differences between EM fields and gravitational fields:
Electric and magnetic fields can be generated in the lab by moving charges; gravity can’t.
Gravity is a much weaker force than EM.
Magnetism only affects certain types of materials; gravity is produced by, and affects, all types of materials.
Gravity only attracts; magnetism/electricity attracts and repels.
Gravity can’t be shielded; magnetism/electricity can.
I should be grateful if you would show the mathematical treatment which shows that.For example:
http://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/i1/em_6x6x6_cube.jpg
snip
When the two ‘neutral’ cubes are viewed as bulks of +, - charges and perturbation (±, -+, ++, --) is used between all the charges to calculate forces then they end up pulling towards each other.
Have you got the book?I should be grateful if you would show the mathematical treatment which shows that.