[Mr. Scientist]

But Work - in the scientific meaning of it because of the total equality of mass and the presence of gravity.

[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?

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

Mr S, I do understand vectors, and it is quite impossible to derive any force that is orthogonal to another force by vector analysis, vector calculus or anything else. This is not a math problem.

I'll give you a model and you can try to knock it down:

Attach a string to a pebble. Now swing the pebble around your head. It orbits around your hand. Easy! Right?

Now try to repeat the experiment without moving your hand in a circle. It's impossible because you cannot impart any rotational movement to the pebble.

Think of gravity as the string and your hand as the center of mass of the earth. Unless the center of mass of the earth executes a circular path relative to you (and it doesn't), it can do nothing to propel you.

[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.

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.

Just plain wrong.
If I chose to measure it in feet, ponds and days that would be a metter of choice but, watever base units you choose the units of mass and gravity will not be the same.
One is a force and the other isn't.
As has been pointed out before, you are seeking "proof by shouting" and that's not going to work here.

It's true that matter produces gravity but that doesn't mean it's the same thing.
Engines produce smoke, but you wouldn't try to run a car on smoke.

[Geezer]

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

Joe, I think you'll find that gravity is a consequence of matter, rather than being part of it. One theory is that matter distorts space to produce gravity. Another is that gravity is produced by gravitons, although, thus far, gravitons remaim hypothetical particles. There is a lot of money being spent to try to observe them, but as far as I am aware, they have not been observed yet.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Would I be wrong in saying, "Gravity is an inherent function of Matter."?  I am trying to get a clearcut definition of Gravity so I can discuss it intelligently with, not only Scientific people but, with the general Population.  Thanks for your help.  Joe L. Ogan

[Geezer]

Would I be wrong in saying, "Gravity is an inherent function of Matter."?  I am trying to get a clearcut definition of Gravity so I can discuss it intelligently with, not only Scientific people but, with the general Population.  Thanks for your help.  Joe L. Ogan

Joe, you are not alone! We seem to have a lot of good science that describes quite accurately what gravity does, although it is not inconceivable that we may have to make some adjustments to that science in the future.

So the "what" part is very well understood. However, when it comes to the "how" part (as in, how is gravitational force communicated between matter) it is still something of a "work in progress". If you look up gravity on Wikipedia, you'll see the many theories of gravity.

I'm not sure how best to describe it in one sentence.

[Mr. Scientist]

Would I be wrong in saying, "Gravity is an inherent function of Matter."?  I am trying to get a clearcut definition of Gravity so I can discuss it intelligently with, not only Scientific people but, with the general Population.  Thanks for your help.  Joe L. Ogan

Gravity is matter - There are both inherent forms of the same thing. Inherent here, is used in the sense of talking about matter as actual fluctuations in the form of distortions. These distortions in spacetime create the curvature that is observed around massive objects in space - and curvature is directly related to acceleration.

In relativity, this means that curvature, acceleration, matter and distortions and also including gravity are all fascets of the same presence of what we observe. Remove one of these, and you cannot deal with the rest.

[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.

Just plain wrong.
If I chose to measure it in feet, ponds and days that would be a metter of choice but, watever base units you choose the units of mass and gravity will not be the same.
One is a force and the other isn't.
As has been pointed out before, you are seeking "proof by shouting" and that's not going to work here.

It's true that matter produces gravity but that doesn't mean it's the same thing.
Engines produce smoke, but you wouldn't try to run a car on smoke.

It's not wrong. If i can remember our debates correctly, you are associating units to justify your arguement. Gravity (or the acceleration due to gravity) is still a force exerted on the system, just as much as weight is in fact inversely proportional to the force and height from the given surface of a gravitationally-warped object.

And i'm not shouting. I've explained very civilly that you where wrong, including those who still persist not to link gravity as an inherent part and of the same single thing as matter itself. I cannot shout on the internet, and even if i could, i wouldn't shout.

[Mr. Scientist]

You can quite easily, for instance, measure weight in Newtons. You can also measure the weight of the earth, because of it being made of units of kilograms. Corresponding the two, 1 kilogram is about 9.8 Newtons. So your presumptious nature was wrong.

[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 orthogonal vectors to suit what you wanted to measure.

Mr S, I do understand vectors, and it is quite impossible to derive any force that is orthogonal to another force by vector analysis, vector calculus or anything else. This is not a math problem.

I'll give you a model and you can try to knock it down:

Attach a string to a pebble. Now swing the pebble around your head. It orbits around your hand. Easy! Right?

Now try to repeat the experiment without moving your hand in a circle. It's impossible because you cannot impart any rotational movement to the pebble.

Think of gravity as the string and your hand as the center of mass of the earth. Unless the center of mass of the earth executes a circular path relative to you (and it doesn't), it can do nothing to propel you.

Are we certain on this? Why not show me some of this understanding then...? Teach me something new.

[Mr. Scientist]

I can't understand your analogy - so will require some math - you know.. the vector calculus you are aware of?

[Mr. Scientist]

I'll save you the trouble of the math - lets stick to terminology.

Something which form a right angle is perpendicular meaning that they are orthagonal - Force IS a vector quantity, so having the information of two vectors form a vertical point of saturation. Are you telling me that we cannot associate two vectors which are perpendicular together and not define each other using calculus?

[Bored chemist]

"You can quite easily, for instance, measure weight in Newtons. You can also measure the weight of the earth, because of it being made of units of kilograms. Corresponding the two, 1 kilogram is about 9.8 Newtons. So your presumptious nature was wrong."

Just plain wrong.
You measure mass in kilograms and weight in Newtons (at least in physics you do). If you like you can switch units and use pounds and slugs, but the units of weight and mass are different because (whether you like it or not) they are different things.
That's why on the moon I would remain about 70Kg in mass, but I would only weigh about 12 Kgf.
Coloquially you weigh things in kilograms but strictly you are using the Kgf as a unit, not the Kg.

It would also help if you stopped posting word-salad like "Force IS a vector quantity, so having the information of two vectors form a vertical point of saturation. Are you telling me that we cannot associate two vectors which are perpendicular together and not define each other using calculus?"

[Mr. Scientist]

The definition of 1kg (which is about the same mass as an apple) is 1 newton.

YOU ARE WRONG. Ok?

Just accept it. You're making a fool of yourself.

[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?

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

Mr S, I do understand vectors, and it is quite impossible to derive any force that is orthogonal to another force by vector analysis, vector calculus or anything else. This is not a math problem.

I'll give you a model and you can try to knock it down:

Attach a string to a pebble. Now swing the pebble around your head. It orbits around your hand. Easy! Right?

Now try to repeat the experiment without moving your hand in a circle. It's impossible because you cannot impart any rotational movement to the pebble.

Think of gravity as the string and your hand as the center of mass of the earth. Unless the center of mass of the earth executes a circular path relative to you (and it doesn't), it can do nothing to propel you.

Are we certain on this? Why not show me some of this understanding then...? Teach me something new.

We are certain of this. The only way to produce a component of force in the direction of motion is create a vector that has a component of force in that direction. By moving your hand in a circular arc, that is precisely what you are doing. So the force in the string (the vector) has two components at right angles. One that propels the stone, and another that acts towards the center of rotation (which in this case is not where your hand is) that maintains the orbit of the stone.

Now, when the vector (the string) goes straight to the center of rotation, the component of the force in the direction of rotation is zero.

Does that help?

[Bored chemist]

The definition of 1kg (which is about the same mass as an apple) is 1 newton.

YOU ARE WRONG. Ok?

Just accept it. You're making a fool of yourself.

F***ing big apples where you come from.

The definition of the kilogram is the mass of a cylinder of a platinum iridium alloy in France.
It was originally defined from the mass of a cubic decimetre of water and the metre was, in turn defined as a fraction of the eath's meridian through Paris.

I'm not the one making a fool of myself here, other than because I'm wasting my time arguing with an idiot.

[Mr. Scientist]

It would also help if you stopped posting word-salad like "Force IS a vector quantity, so having the information of two vectors form a vertical point of saturation. Are you telling me that we cannot associate two vectors which are perpendicular together and not define each other using calculus?

Give me strength - now your supporting him? Just you two keep together. You make a good couple.

[Mr. Scientist]

The definition of 1kg (which is about the same mass as an apple) is 1 newton.

YOU ARE WRONG. Ok?

Just accept it. You're making a fool of yourself.

F***ing big apples where you come from.

The definition of the kilogram is the mass of a cylinder of a platinum iridium alloy in France.
It was originally defined from the mass of a cubic decimetre of water and the metre was, in turn defined as a fraction of the eath's meridian through Paris.

I'm not the one making a fool of myself here, other than because I'm wasting my time arguing with an idiot.

1 Newton i meant to say corresponds to the general mass of an apple. Ok? It's you that's messing with my head.

[Bored chemist]

It would also help if you stopped posting word-salad like "Force IS a vector quantity, so having the information of two vectors form a vertical point of saturation. Are you telling me that we cannot associate two vectors which are perpendicular together and not define each other using calculus?

Give me strength - now your supporting him? Just you two keep together. You make a good couple.

Since we are both right it should be no problem to keep together.
Anyway, while I accept that a typical apple has a mass of about 0.1Kg and a weight (on earth near sea level) of about 1 Newton, that has nothing to do with the fact that weight and mass are different. Ask an astronaut.

[Farsight]

Joe: imagine a cubic light year of space. I nearly said "empty space", but it isn't quite empty, because that space has vacuum energy. But anyway, put a planet in the middle of this apace. In doing this you've added a mass, and since E=mc² you've added a concentration of energy. As a result, you've also altered the surrounding space to add a gravitational field. Now add a second planet, thus adding further energy to your cubic light year. Now let the two planets fall together and coalesce. There will be fireworks, and radiation, and that radiation will escape your cubic light year. This is the transference of energy, and at first glance gravity caused it, so we might say "gravity does work". But instead of making two planets, you could have made a star, and then the radiation would have escaped your cubic light year, and gravity didn't make it happen. Since a concentration of energy causes gravity, and a ooncentration of energy in a star emits radiation, it's better to say that non-uniform energy usually does work. Energy tends to spread out evenly, that's entropy, and when it does this, you have a transfer of energy, which is work. 

PS: a black hole is something of an exception, in that then the concentration of energy doesn't spread out.