wrote in message
ups.com...
Gravity does not exist at the LaGrangian point.

Yes it does. Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity
of one mass is cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no
effect on free bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.


"Bill" wrote:
How does one know it exists there? By measuring it? Or by postulating it?
If gravity of one mass is cancelled by another then it does not exist,
the
net force is zero.

There is a big difference between "does not exist" and "net force =
zero."

Yes there is. But how does one tell the difference?



... Zero means nothing. Anyway, you are completely wrong.
Gravity can be higher at a Lagrangian point provided it is countered by
acceleration forces. It says so on this NASA website:



So, you said gravity doesn't exist, now you say that it not only may
exist but that those who know most about it say it is greater; then
you say that I'm "completely wrong."

Good work.

The good work goes to you. You've parsed out all of the previous thread to
only the above point. Why is that?

You said gravity cancels at the Lagrangian point. I said it does not exist.
For simplicity let's throw away the L2, L3... Langrangian points and deal
with just the L1 point since it can be argued that in a first order case
there is no net gravity at that point. Agreed?

You say the gravity there exists but it cancels to zero.

I say the gravity does not exist because it is zero.

Of course we are talking of the total or net gravitational field at a point
in space. Now if you were in a black box at the L1 point and not aware of
the external cicrumstances and took out your gravitometer and measured zero
what would your conclusion be? Would it be there is no field here (Occam's
razor) or would you conclude that there are bodies nearby in such
arrangement to have their fields cancel? Remember you are in a black box.

So tell me of an experiment to be performed at a single point in space that
can resolve all the gravitational vectors upon that point.

Is there no gravity at the center of the earth or is there lots of gravity
that just happens to cancel to zero?

Since when does the quantity zero imply the existence of anything?

As far as being completely wrong, you are. Here is a bit on the LaGrangian
point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

"The Lagrange points mark positions where the combined gravitational pull of
the two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to
rotate with them."

This is not what you said, you only considered gravity.




I look forward to your help and comments with my replies to your
scientifically astute and accurate commentary. It's not often we get
someone
here who really knows their **** and is willing to help others. Thanks
immensely.


You're welcome immensely.

I'd like to be regraded. You said:

"In other words, "Bill" you flunked the physics test and you don't know
as much as you think you do."


But you didn't know who Milliken was, you believed he was like the Amazing
Kreskin; you weren't aware of Einstein saying the gravity field ceases to
exist for an observer in a free fall; you mistook my single clock running at
two different rates for two different observers as 2 clocks in different
inertial frames, disagreed with what I said and then essentially restated
what I said to make your point; you failed to account for the increase in
oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant; you have not defended your
position that not all realized energy involves movement, which it does; you
claim that things exist when measured to be zero and exhibit no effect what
so ever on test particles. In view of these oversights on your part would
you kindly regrade the physics test? I am but a simple student/observer of
natural philosophy seeking direction.

I'll gladly admit any mistakes I have made if you kindly point them out. I
just don't see how I deserve a failing grade or how you can possible
estimate how much I think I know about physics.The bottom line is it's not
what you think you know, it's what you can prove, measure and demonstrate. I
tried to do that with all the points we disagreed upon to the best one can
do in a single USENET post. It now seems the only point left with which we
disagree is that you say:

Even though gravity measured is zero it is really there but cancels itself.

And I say:

If gravity is measured to be zero, it (gravity) does not exist at the point
of measurement.

My statement is the fundamental law of identity A---A A is A. A being
"zero" or "non existence".

Your argument is A----A+*A. This essentially says that A can be itself plus
elements that are not itself. Carrying it one step further by making A to be
zero, you are making nothing to be made up of constituent elements that when
added make it zero, but the elements are still there, existing beyond all
senses and measurement.


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Bill