Gravity.
Let's suppose there is a modern day Isaac Newton. When he was a little boy he got toys that were like ping-pong balls but they had a magnet inside of them that was free to rotate in any direction within the ping-pong ball. Young Isaac could take two of these ping-pong balls turn them in any orientation, let go of them and they always rolled toward each other. This occurred because the internal magnets would quickly orient themselves so that there was always an attractive force between the two ping-pong balls. Young Isaac could take clusters of this ping-pong balls, change their orientation in anyway, release the clusters and the clusters would come together. Only if there were extremely large clusters could repelling be seen, but young Isaac did not have access to those.
Isaac's parents heard the company that made these toys that Isaac loved was closing, so they, being rich, bought out the entire stock pile of these unique ping-pong balls. They were all delivered the same day by loads of trucks and some were even dropped from the air. Isaac watched as they all piled into the barn they had cleared out. But to Isaac's surprise the numerous clusters of these ping-pong balls did not move toward each other. In each local region they did attract each other, but in viewing the entire array there were regions where clusters were moving away from other clusters.
Isaac opened one of the ping-pong balls and discovered the magnet inside of it. He then realized that in each local region of space, the magnets could orient themselves fast enough so that no force of repelling was ever observed, but if very large clusters of these ping-pong balls were brought together fast enough, the magnets could not change their orientation fast enough to prevent repelling so there were regions where the clusters of these ping-pong balls moved away from each other. From these toys young Isaac learned that he could not make judgments about attraction and repelling based on observations in any local region of space.
When Isaac got older, he studied physics. He knew that magnets both attract and repel, but he also learned that the strong and weak forces also would both attract and repel. In a lecture on grand unification, he was told that physicists had trouble unifying all forces of nature because gravity was only a force of attraction. He thought about his toy ping-pong balls, read that there were places in the universe where large objects were moving away from each other, he looked at swirls of stars in the night sky, and thought this is just like what occurred the day all those ping-pong balls were delivered to my barn.
Do you think this young modern Isaac would have concluded that gravity is only a force of attraction knowing that that conclusion is based on observations made in only local regions of space four centuries earlier? Do you think he would assume that the rotation rate of the sun has no effect on the perihelion motion of Mercury?
Of course many physicists believe that the motion seen in the universe can explained by assuming all planets were in an extremely small volume of space, along with the sun, and all the stars in the Milky Way, and all the stars (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in the numerous galaxies of the universe, and the force of gravitational attraction due to this incredible mass within the small volume of space was so great that it caused a Big Bang sending objects in all directions causing the observations of the universe we see. I wonder if a young Isaac would think that same way or would he simply say gravity both repels and attracts like other known forces.
What is your view of what this modern day Isaac would have concluded about gravity being both a force of attraction and a repelling force?

David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:40:09 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What is your view of what this modern day Isaac would have concluded about gravity being both a force of attraction and a repelling force?

No. Idiot.

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:40:09 PM UTC-5, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

<nonsense snipped>

Before posting here, you need to learn how to write. Your text is way too long and therefore it makes you look like a nutcase. You could have said all that in one small paragraph. So start over then we will read it then we will be able to comment it.

I will start to report you as spam if you do not know how to write In an appropriate manner.

braindead crackpot rotchm wrote:

> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:40:09 PM UTC-5, sep...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> Before posting here, you need to learn how to write. Your text is way
> too long and therefore it makes you look like a nutcase. You could have
> said all that in one small paragraph. So start over then we will read it
> then we will be able to comment it.
>
> I will start to report you as spam if you do not know how to write In an
> appropriate manner.

you stupid french frog, the spammer of this group, don't even know what
spam is.

Go fuck yourself elsewhere, you stupid dick.

sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gravity.
> Let's suppose there is a modern day Isaac Newton. When he was a little
> boy he got toys that were like ping-pong balls but they had a magnet
> inside of them that was free to rotate in any direction within the
> ping-pong ball. Young Isaac could take two of these ping-pong balls turn
> them in any orientation, let go of them and they always rolled toward
> each other. This occurred because the internal magnets would quickly
> orient themselves so that there was always an attractive force between
> the two ping-pong balls. Young Isaac could take clusters of this
> ping-pong balls, change their orientation in anyway, release the clusters
> and the clusters would come together. Only if there were extremely large
> clusters could repelling be seen, but young Isaac did not have access to those.
> Isaac's parents heard the company that made these toys that Isaac
> loved was closing, so they, being rich, bought out the entire stock pile
> of these unique ping-pong balls. They were all delivered the same day by
> loads of trucks and some were even dropped from the air. Isaac watched as
> they all piled into the barn they had cleared out. But to Isaac's
> surprise the numerous clusters of these ping-pong balls did not move
> toward each other. In each local region they did attract each other, but
> in viewing the entire array there were regions where clusters were moving
> away from other clusters.
> Isaac opened one of the ping-pong balls and discovered the magnet
> inside of it. He then realized that in each local region of space, the
> magnets could orient themselves fast enough so that no force of repelling
> was ever observed, but if very large clusters of these ping-pong balls
> were brought together fast enough, the magnets could not change their
> orientation fast enough to prevent repelling so there were regions where
> the clusters of these ping-pong balls moved away from each other. From
> these toys young Isaac learned that he could not make judgments about
> attraction and repelling based on observations in any local region of space.
> When Isaac got older, he studied physics. He knew that magnets both
> attract and repel, but he also learned that the strong and weak forces
> also would both attract and repel. In a lecture on grand unification, he
> was told that physicists had trouble unifying all forces of nature
> because gravity was only a force of attraction. He thought about his toy
> ping-pong balls, read that there were places in the universe where large
> objects were moving away from each other, he looked at swirls of stars in
> the night sky, and thought this is just like what occurred the day all
> those ping-pong balls were delivered to my barn.
> Do you think this young modern Isaac would have concluded that
> gravity is only a force of attraction knowing that that conclusion is
> based on observations made in only local regions of space four centuries
> earlier? Do you think he would assume that the rotation rate of the sun
> has no effect on the perihelion motion of Mercury?
> Of course many physicists believe that the motion seen in the
> universe can explained by assuming all planets were in an extremely small
> volume of space, along with the sun, and all the stars in the Milky Way,
> and all the stars (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in the numerous
> galaxies of the universe, and the force of gravitational attraction due
> to this incredible mass within the small volume of space was so great
> that it caused a Big Bang sending objects in all directions causing the
> observations of the universe we see. I wonder if a young Isaac would
> think that same way or would he simply say gravity both repels and
> attracts like other known forces.
> What is your view of what this modern day Isaac would have concluded
> about gravity being both a force of attraction and a repelling force?

I think you are missing a lot of key information that would inform this
discussion better, rather than the crayon-stroke superficiality you’ve
brought to it. As an example of this, let’s just focus on electrostatics
and magnetism. You may be aware that electrostatic laws explain attraction
and repulsion by the existence of two flavors of charge, called positive
and negative, and that these actually are referred to as electrostatic
monopoles in some cases. You may also be aware that there are no magnetic
monopoles. So then the question should arise in your mind, what then
accounts for magnetic attraction and repulsion, given that there are no
magnetic monopoles that are sources or sinks of field lines?

Basics, first. But learn to shade properly, using a finer pen, instead of
just using a crayon.

Once you’ve wrestled with that, you can remind yourself there are six
flavors of strong nuclear charge, and so how do attraction and repulsion
arise from that?

>
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables