[Geezer]

Farsight.. enough. You have seen my reply - your archiac science has no place when considering these things. Obviously if gravity is a physical force, it must have a work associated to it.

I don't think so. Mr S, I presume you are sitting on a chair. Gravity is exerting a force on you and the chair is reacting to that force to support your mass. While the chair continues to support that mass, no work is done. If the chair collapses and you fall to the ground, work has been done. Just because there is a force it does not mean work is being done.

Now you're talking rubbish.
To have any physical system do work, there must be a force applied to it. This was simple Newtonian dynamics. The chair collapsing does not because of the overwhelming electrostatic force, not the gravity which almost surely cancels out.

Mr S,
It is unfortunate that you have to descend to terms like "talking rubbish". Kindly review my explanation and provide me with some data that points out a flaw in my reasoning.
G

[Mr. Scientist]

I apologize. I've only just woken up. I have had many things on my mind and it does not excuse my use of language. I will though, point out your mistakes, properly.

[Mr. Scientist]

How are you with math?

[Geezer]

My math is limited. My understanding of mechanics and dynamics is not so limited. Work is a very simple concept. Force applied without movement (displacement) does NOT constitute work.

Get your facts straight before you start rubbishing other posters.

[Mr. Scientist]

Well, this won't be too hard.

Take the constant g - this is gravitational acceleration. This is the kind of acceleration attributed to moving objects. In fact, we can pretty much tell the motion of how thing move to earth because of this constant, which has a value of about 9.8N.

x=x_0+v_0(t)+1/2(at)^2

where t is the function of time, x_0 is the initial position and v_0 is the initial velocity. Now, you can plug in pretty much any values you want for the time, position, but you can specifically replace (a) which is the acceleration symbol with [g] - ''that'' gravitational acceleration so as you might surmise to understand, force is actually attributed to the gravitational acceleration and we often give it as F=Mg - meaning that force is inversely-related to the acceleration of something, a point you where completely ignoring when i told you.

Suppose we did change the formula. It would now look like:

y=v_{0v}(t) - 1/2 (gt)^2

This means we can work out the height of an object - an the essential word here is being ''work'' - so how is work associated to everything conjectured so far?

well, this can be easier to understand. The energy of any mass is given in terms of a possible work it may do. This is the gravitational potential, and if there is a potential for any mass to move, then it SURELY CAN be said there is an associated possible work.

GPE=Wh

is the Gravitational potential energy (GPE) equation, and W is the weight and h is the height. And so:

GPE=Mgh

Where M is the mass. So i have proven here that the mass is certaily related to the work it can do. Just to prove it with a final set of equations, h/2 will be our units above the ground, so to have something move, we now yield the formula:

W_k=Fh

where W_k is the work due to kinetic energy and this work of any material body i inversely related to the force and hieght of the system from some h/2 from the earth's surface.

Done.

 

[Geezer]

You may try to redefine the definition of work all you want, but it's already been defined. Sorry.

[Mr. Scientist]

But it proved you wrong, so the sorry from you was disingeneous. I can assure you, that matter is the presence of gravity, so gravity has its own work associated to it as well. You cannot have a material body without the presence of gravity - the two are fundamentally the same thing in relativity.

[Geezer]

OK. So let's assume, for a moment, that you are correct and that work is being done in propelling you around the universe.

Where is the source of the energy that is doing that work, and how is it being communicated to your mass?

[Mr. Scientist]

The graviton - and according to most scientists, it's a true particle even though its still not been found. In fact, let's take this conjecture rather than your own. Makes things a hell of a lot simpler.

Do not particles contain a kinetic energy which can provide them with work?

Do not gravitons by theory physically interact all material bodies together attractively?

[Mr. Scientist]

You may try to redefine the definition of work all you want, but it's already been defined. Sorry.

And by the way.. i never redefined anything. The work is basic textbook physics.

[Geezer]

Yes. Gravitrons may explain how the gravitational force is communicated. But how would that force be able to impart a force that is orthagonal to it?

[Geezer]

You may try to redefine the definition of work all you want, but it's already been defined. Sorry.

And by the way.. i never redefined anything. The work is basic textbook physics.

That's good. I only understand basic textbook physics.

[Geezer]

I give up. I am telling you all, there is work assocoiated to the gravity of something. If it didn't, gravitational objects could not move. It's very simple.
 

Dearie me, Mr S,

That doesn't strike me as being too scientific. If you'll pardon my unscientific opinion, it sounds a lot more like

"Proof By Loud Assertion" than anything else.

BTW, gravitational objects move by virtue of their kinetic energy. What's to slow them down?

G

[Bored chemist]

It is in error, because gravity is the same as matter, and since matter does work, the postulation speaks for itself

The unit of mass is the kilogram.
The units in which gravity gets measured depend on how you look at it but they are either M^3/S^-2/Kg or just Kg M S^-2

two things with different units are not the same thing.

Gravity is a force and matter is what forces act on.
They are plainly different and it's silly to say they are the same.

For what it's worth, Einstein said that mass was the equivalent of energy rather than of gravity.

[Mr. Scientist]

It is in error, because gravity is the same as matter, and since matter does work, the postulation speaks for itself

The unit of mass is the kilogram.
The units in which gravity gets measured depend on how you look at it but they are either M^3/S^-2/Kg or just Kg M S^-2

two things with different units are not the same thing.

Gravity is a force and matter is what forces act on.
They are plainly different and it's silly to say they are the same.

For what it's worth, Einstein said that mass was the equivalent of energy rather than of gravity.

Not according to Einstein. Gravity and matter are essentially the same thing; your arguement consists of what units one wishes to choose to measure something, but math is abstractual that way and can't itself be used as an arguement.

If Einsteins theory was not correct locally, then we would see matter without the presence of gravitational distortions... or atleast, hypothetically-saying, since we wouldn't be here at all if the two where not just different fascets or different sides to the same quantum coin.

[Mr. Scientist]

I give up. I am telling you all, there is work assocoiated to the gravity of something. If it didn't, gravitational objects could not move. It's very simple.
 

Dearie me, Mr S,

That doesn't strike me as being too scientific. If you'll pardon my unscientific opinion, it sounds a lot more like

"Proof By Loud Assertion" than anything else.

BTW, gravitational objects move by virtue of their kinetic energy. What's to slow them down?

G

A decrease in kinetic energy of course, but for a graviton this will not necesserily happen because it must move at a constant speed of c if it where to actually be a physical attraction from one body of mass to another.

[Mr. Scientist]

Yes. Gravitrons may explain how the gravitational force is communicated. But how would that force be able to impart a force that is orthagonal to it?

Vector calculus. You could work orthagonal vectors to suit what you wanted to measure.

[Mr. Scientist]

And of course the laws of motion included, along with every other quantum detail you wish or need to have.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

It is in error, because gravity is the same as matter, and since matter does work, the postulation speaks for itself

Mr. Scientist.  I believe that I have figured out what you meant to say:  "Gravity is an inherent part of Matter.  It can not be separated.  But it does do work."  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

[Mr. Scientist]

Yes, pretty much