Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: gazza711 on 23/05/2015 19:25:31
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
-
"there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY"
The proof has been around for a long time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
And, since many of the tests done on gravity are based on astronomy it's clear that the experiments do work in space.
-
ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is isolated from the ground,steel and lead.now do this experiment with different materials.most probably a high static charge.very easy to diagnose that one.
other experiment involves a lead weight most probably,water beneath the mountains maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication.
both these experiments do not prove anything.i know its convincing.
need some more solid proof.no one has ever answered this question for me.the more I delve,the more im convinced its all waffle?
-
"ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is "
Exactly what sort of foam do you think Cavendish was using over two hundred years ago?
Also, over the sort of time scales involved in these experiments, static charges would leak away before they had any effect.
Why do you think otherwise?
"maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication."
Do you understand that dowsing has never been shown to be a real effect?
-
Incidentally, there are other methods used for measuring it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13433.html
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/sergio.ciliberto/Teaching/Cours_physique_experimentale/gravitation.pdf
-
This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
What do you think keeps the moon orbiting the earth? Invisible string?
-
now do this experiment with different materials
The Eötvös experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment#Further_improvements)was conducted to compare gravitational mass with inertial mass. By around 1885, gravity was found to be independent of the substance, to a very high precision.
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
Why don't you do some work to test it and see if it works, then do the same with your own model and see if it can match it. It's easy enough to write little programs to simulate gravity - here are some of mine (all of them simply applying the inverse square law in order to apply a force in the direction of the sun which gets stronger as the object gets closer in): http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/inner-planets.html (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/inner-planets.html), http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/sun2saturn.html (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/sun2saturn.html), http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/eliptical.html (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/eliptical.html). You don't believe in gravity and want to achieve the same thing using air pressure instead, so write a little program to see if that works - given that the planets are going round in something very close to a total vacuum, you'll find that they'll just travel in straight lines and shoot off into deep space, aided just a tiny fraction by the solar wind which continually streams away from the sun.
In short, do the work and try to stop being a troll.
-
This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
What do you think keeps the moon orbiting the earth? Invisible string?
Invisible string.your joking right.im joking.how about when you put salt in water,it makes it denser and we float with lungs full or not.Ok,now if the moons atmosphere is made from sodium,then the moon itself releases sodium maybe?so why does the moon attract water(salty water infact),where there are places on earth that show the tide actually moving through a river where there are no waves at all.hmmm.piece of string.there aren't tides in still water caused by the moon.lol
gav
-
"ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is "
Exactly what sort of foam do you think Cavendish was using over two hundred years ago?
Also, over the sort of time scales involved in these experiments, static charges would leak away before they had any effect.
Why do you think otherwise?
"maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication."
Do you understand that dowsing has never been shown to be a real effect?
it has.people have been using it since before the Egyptians.how do you find water in the desert.proven!
Cavendish experiment I saw was on youtube.either way-heres some interesting reading.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
might shed some light-
peace
gav
-
"We are bubbles of earth! Bubbles of earth! Bubbles of earth!"
-Flora Thompson, Lark Rise to Candleford
-
Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?
-
Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?
you quote the quote. I meant the experiment was replicated recently, recorded on a device that's captures film, converted to mpeg and uploaded on youtube in the last ten years. forget what was on the youtube fullstop. I was mearly explaining what you could've seen. If you have read the link I left for you, this guy will explain why it is flawed. More importantly, nothing in that experiment proves there is a pulling down force. That link explains a lot of common sense without numbers and equations. If everything we don't understand is given a formula, its pointless
Now tell me. What experiment have you done to prove attraction. If youre not gonna read the link, then how do you know what conditions the experiment was done under. Surely the room or walls or anything heavier local to the experiment would've influenced the movement. if other experiment were used at the top of mountains or something along those lines, there will always be differences. Unless the earth was at equal atmospheric pressures on every inch of the earth, its acceptable this wouldn't prove attraction.
Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction.
peace
gav
-
Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?
there is plenty of water in most deserts. you just have to dig deep enough. Ive seen it. Surely sand people back in the day didn't just decide to settle in these areas because of unknown reasons.
Im not stating facts or trying not to, Im mearly debating science that has been proven to be flawed many a time.
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r2 between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.
Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.
You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r2 between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.
Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.
You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.
first quote wasn't me, but I agree. wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.I feel newton just explained his findings. Before newton, many knew of the movements of the stars.The fact that they saw these events and recorded them, and then newton using historic evidence and an apple gave him the theory of which Einstein offered another explanation.If newton hadn't said what he did, would we be stuck with einsteins theory. you must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick. This was 150 years ago. didn't even have cars. I would love to see a working example of the exact experiment,then I will shut my trap for a month.
gav
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r2 between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.
Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.
You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.
Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?
there is plenty of water in most deserts. you just have to dig deep enough. Ive seen it. Surely sand people back in the day didn't just decide to settle in these areas because of unknown reasons.
Im not stating facts or trying not to, Im mearly debating science that has been proven to be flawed many a time.
You are arguing against yourself.
If there's plenty of water and you just have to dig then you don't need dowsing do you? But, if someone waved some hazel twigs around first and said "this is the place" then some people would be conned into thinking he was dowsing. As you say "You must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick."
It's true that science gets things wrong, but the beauty of the system is that it corrects itself- that's why Newton was a step forward from Galileo and Einstein was a step further.
But the obvious reality is that gravity exists - we know this because we don't drift into space.
It's obvious that it works for things that are not on the Earth- that's why we have tides.
And so on.
Yet you say " But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction."
Well, name one.
And we will show you why it's not that it disproves attraction; it's just that you don't understand how things work.
-
..wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.
No.
I feel newton just explained his findings.
Incorrect.
Before newton, many knew of the movements of the stars.
You're confusing the motion of the stars with the cause of that motion.
The fact that they saw these events and recorded them, and then newton using historic evidence and an apple gave him the theory of which Einstein offered another explanation.
And that explanation is that there is a gravitational force between any two bodies.
If newton hadn't said what he did, would we be stuck with einsteins theory.
Einstein's theory reduces to Newton's theory in the case of weak gravitational fields and slowly moving bodies and sources with low pressure and stress.
you must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick.
Which is totally irrelevant to this subject and something that all physicists are acutely aware of.
This was 150 years ago. didn't even have cars.
What was 150 years ago?
I would love to see a working example of the exact experiment,then I will shut my trap for a month.
What experiment?
There are plenty of experiments in almost every aspect of physics and every law and prediction made in physics. You just have to look for them. Please don't expect us to do your work for you.
-
wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.I feel newton just explained his findings.
The Greeks watched the skies carefully. Reconstructions of the Antikythera mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism) reproduce some of these motions with remarkable accuracy (probably for casting horoscopes). The Greeks had some great geometers, but they were not very much into calculations with data - their numbering system alone would discourage any but the most enthusiastic accountant.
Tycho Brahe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_observational_astronomy)was Danish, and produced measurements of the positions of the planets that were far more accurate than any previously recorded.
Johannes Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Harmonices_Mundi)was German, and used Tycho's measurements to deduce that planets followed elliptical orbits.
Newton (and others at the time) showed that the only force that could produce this path is an inverse square law. Newton acknowledged his predecessors when he wrote in a letter that "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
Kepler was not infallible - he thought that gravity was due to magnetic attraction between the Earth and other bodies in the Solar System. We now know that the Earth's magnetic field is not nearly strong enough to produce the effects of gravitational attraction over interplanetary distances.
the moons atmosphere is made from sodium...so why does the moon attract water(salty water infact)
And today, we know that the Van Der Waals forces between atoms in the atmosphere of Earth, the Sun (and especially the extremely good vacuum that passes as an atmosphere on the Moon) is too short-range and too weak to operate over planetary distances - in fact these forces are insignificant over a 1 mm distance.
-
Tycho Brahe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_observational_astronomy)was Danish, and produced measurements of the positions of the planets that were far more accurate than any previously recorded.
Johannes Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Harmonices_Mundi)was German, and used Tycho's measurements to deduce that planets followed elliptical orbits.
Newton (and others at the time) showed that the only force that could produce this path is an inverse square law. Newton acknowledged his predecessors when he wrote in a letter that "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".
My compliments my good man. I knew all of this of course as do all physicists. I was just too lazy to get into it since I'm certain he'll ignore it.
-
Try to lift a one ton weight, I assure you it will feel very pulled to the floor. Even better for an experiment , hold a 25 kg weight while you are swimming, notice how the weight pulls down, but it is ok, because according to you in another thread, the air pushes you and the weight down.
So it will only push you just under the surface, there is no air underwater, so what air exactly pushes you to the bottom of the sea and holds all those shipwrecked boats down there?
p.s if you do try this experiment Gazza, do not forget safety procedures and let go of the 25kg weight, so you can easily swim back up to the surface, through the no underwater air .
-
What goes up......... do you know the rest?
-
Now tell me. What experiment have you done to prove attraction. If youre not gonna read the link, then how do you know what conditions the experiment was done under. Surely the room or walls or anything heavier local to the experiment would've influenced the movement. if other experiment were used at the top of mountains or something along those lines, there will always be differences. Unless the earth was at equal atmospheric pressures on every inch of the earth, its acceptable this wouldn't prove attraction.
The surrounding material such as mountains and the room are of no significance. Hang a sphere of lead 2 inches in diameter like the spheres in the Cavendish experiment. The sphere will not be deflected to any particular side because the net gravitational field in the direction parallel to the ground is zero. When the other sphere is placed near it then it will exert a force on it according to Newton's law of gravitation and its that force that's measured. The result is in accordance with Newton's law.
-
I would be interested to know what objects, that are visible around us, today rely on the fact that we are being pulled towards the ground. [:P]
And not only that but how would these things still function if we were not being pulled to the ground.... [:I]
Some possible examples for consideration: cars, shoes, hydroelectric dams, rain, rockets, golf and even the Moon.
-
I would be interested to know what objects, that are visible around us, today rely on the fact that we are being pulled towards the ground. [:P]
I think the list would only be manageable if you just consider those things that don't rely on being pulled towards ground.
However, it won't help the poster who thinks everything is being pushed down!
-
I would be interested to know what objects, that are visible around us, today rely on the fact that we are being pulled towards the ground. [:P]
And not only that but how would these things still function if we were not being pulled to the ground.... [:I]
Some possible examples for consideration: cars, shoes, hydroelectric dams, rain, rockets, golf and even the Moon.
How do you know everything is being pulled down.You know that trick when you spin a wheel fast enough,you can tell which way its turning.surely if all things attracted,especially LEAD,then the universe and solar system would just stick to itself and it would just be one lump of ###
-
There are two reasons that the universe in not one big lump, despite all the matter attracting all the rest of the matter:
1) Energy--there is enough energy in the universe to break that lump into smaller pieces, and enough left over to make these pieces move around.
2) Space--there is enough space in the universe that two clumps of matter are unlikely to get close enough together to stick.
Now for the interesting part: the amount of (kinetic) energy that the matter has is decreasing over time (on average, the universe is getting colder and things are moving more slowly), implying that as time goes on, the universe is more likely to condense into this large lump you mention. But the amount of space appears to increasing as well, and this would imply that it is getting more difficult for the universe to collapse into a large lump.
Which is it? We don't know for sure, but most cosmologists agree at this point that the expansion will beat out the cooling.
-
I would add a third reason why everything doesn't collapse together:
3) Orbiting in a gravitational field does not dissipate energy. So even objects which are close enough to attract each other strongly, like the Sun and the Earth, the Earth and the Moon, or the Sun and the galactic black hole, they do not collapse into one another. As they get a little bit closer, they speed up; they then move further away and slow down again - this produces an elliptical orbit which is stable for astronomical periods of time.
(There is a small amount of gravitational radiation which does affect closely-orbiting neutron stars; this can be ignored for objects the size of the Solar System.)
-
In forty days time New Horizons will arrive at Pluto. To do so it made a close approach to Jupiter in order to pick up speed. If it performs in a comparable way to other planetary probes it will arrive, after a decade long journey, within seconds of its planned arrival time.
How would this be possible, gazza, if we did not have a sound understanding of gravity?
-
How do you know everything is being pulled down.You know that trick when you spin a wheel fast enough,you can tell which way its turning.surely if all things attracted,especially LEAD,then the universe and solar system would just stick to itself and it would just be one lump of ###
You can't be serious! Think about what you just said. If you threw a stone and another stone when they stick together because of their gravitational attraction or would they simply bounce off of each other? Do you know why all of the planets in the solar system have been revolving around the sun these last 4 billion + years and haven't fallen into the Sun due to its gravitational field?
-
I would add a third reason why everything doesn't collapse together:
3) Orbiting in a gravitational field does not dissipate energy. So even objects which are close enough to attract each other strongly, like the Sun and the Earth, the Earth and the Moon, or the Sun and the galactic black hole, they do not collapse into one another. As they get a little bit closer, they speed up; they then move further away and slow down again - this produces an elliptical orbit which is stable for astronomical periods of time.
(There is a small amount of gravitational radiation which does affect closely-orbiting neutron stars; this can be ignored for objects the size of the Solar System.)
So I totally agree on what you have said.I never stated my theory was fact-just who agreed.Until we can simulate conditions of space and mimic all that we believe,then its still a theory isn't it?if gravity was indeed proved-it wouldn't be a theory still after 4 billion years.I guess if someone said-hey eureka-we can explain this,then one might ask that the attraction is more to with either the motion of water being swished and something being dragged in the path replacing it.that would be displacement like smoking out a moving car window and a car drives past and sucks that away.who knows.
-
either the motion of water being swished and something being dragged in the path replacing it.that would be displacement like smoking out a moving car window and a car drives past and sucks that away
The motion of water and smoke are both considered problems in hydrodynamics. Both are "dissipative systems", where the large scale motion breaks up into whirlpools or vortices, and these spin off even smaller vortices, and so on until the energy is largely dissipated.
This is entirely unlike the motion of planets around the Sun, which are conservative in nature - they basically keep the same angular momentum over time (with a bit of trading backwards and forwards between the planets).
who knows.
Scientists puzzled this out over a century or two - Newton's law of universal gravitation is quite simple, and predicts orbits which are periodic for hundreds of millions of years into the future (although they eventually degenerate into chaotic motion, even without external influences). It is very accurate, and just needed a small tweak from Einstein in the case of Mercury.
The Navier Stokes equations (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/nseqs.html) describing the motions of fluids are far more complex, are very hard to solve, and result in chaotic motion on a millisecond-by millisecond basis. Despite their great economic value in improving the aerodynamics of aeroplanes and predicting the weather, they can only be roughly approximated on today's largest computers.
Newton basically invented differential equations as part of proving the uniqueness of the inverse square law of gravity (around 1670). The Navier-Stokes equations (early 1800s) require partial differential equations, which were a much later development in mathematics.
So I guess you could say that for about the last 2 centuries, it has been known by everyone who took the trouble to ask.
-
Until we can simulate conditions of space and mimic all that we believe,then its still a theory isn't it?
You really need to learn what a scientific theory is. Ignorance is something we all have and is nothing to be ashamed of. Deliberate, persistent ignorance is another matter.
You could start here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory), but if you can't be bothered, this sentence gets to the heart of the matter.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge
Do you understand? In science you don't get better than a theory.
-
Until we can simulate conditions of space and mimic all that we believe,then its still a theory isn't it?if gravity was indeed proved-it wouldn't be a theory still after 4 billion years.
First of all it's quite literally impossible to simulate "conditions of space and mimic all that we believe" because that includes all the permutations of the various conditions that are possible and that's an infinite number of states. Second of all it appears as if you think as the term is used in science and by scientists that the term "theory" is merely a synonym for an hypothesis and it most certainly isn't. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Or better yet, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
Note the part I underlined which said Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses..
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
Let me ask you something without having to reread this entire thread all over again. Have you figured out that there's an enormous amount of observational data and experiments which confirm the theory of gravity? If the theory of gravity, based on the force between two point objects having a force of F = GMm/r2 was wrong then we'd never have been able to send all those probes that we've sent out into the solar system and get to where we expected them to go. And that required an extreme amount of precision. In fact the discovery of Neptune was a sensational confirmation of Newton's theory of gravity. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
For more evidence see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
-
Is there an echo here?
-
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
Let me ask you something without having to reread this entire thread all over again. Have you figured out that there's an enormous amount of observational data and experiments which confirm the theory of gravity? If the theory of gravity, based on the force between two point objects having a force of F = GMm/r2 was wrong then we'd never have been able to send all those probes that we've sent out into the solar system and get to where we expected them to go. And that required an extreme amount of precision. In fact the discovery of Neptune was a sensational confirmation of Newton's theory of gravity. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
For more evidence see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Hi.What proof can you show me that objects attract on earth.Cavendish experiment only helped newtons theory-Neptune discovery based on Stonehenge predicting seasons for example.neptune had been discovered before but not predicted when it would return on its path.theories are predictions.einstein improved the theory but didn't change.theres a million disproven theories.the fact that things fall do not mean they are being pulled unless you can see the force(like magnetic flux)
.....
-
If you don't accept that the cavendish experiment proves the attraction of objects, then there isn't much hope that anything said in this forum will change your mind...
The gravitational force is just as easy to "see" as magnetic fields (they are both completely invisible), I don't understand what the holdup is there...
Gravity is not only a force that shows itself when causing objects to fall--it's also responsible for requiring energy to lift objects up (or hold them up). You can feel the gravitational pull of the Earth every time you climb the stairs and every time you lift anything heavy.
Theories are more than predictions. Theories are what we use to make predictions. The theory of gravity allows us to predict the orbits of all of the planets and moons in our solar system and others, allows us to send probes wherever we wish within the solar system; allows us to put satelites up around the Earth, allows us to launch missiles from any point on the Earth to any other point on the Earth etc. etc. etc.
-
Hi.What proof can you show me that objects attract on earth.
The Cavendish experiment of course. That is precisely the experiment that directly tests that relationship. But there's no reason to assume, in fact its irrational to think otherwise, that gravity doesn't work on Earth given that it does work for planets
Cavendish experiment only helped newtons theory..
So what? That's what you're talking about. I.e. Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2 and that's what the Cavendish experiment directly tests. This has been explained to you many times. I suggest that you cease trying to claim that it's wrong and start trying to understand why it's right. You've been given direct experimental observations and all you do is claim that they aren't such. That's quite illogical.
-Neptune discovery based on Stonehenge ..
What??? "based on Stonehenge"? You've got to be kidding me! It's the relation F = GMm/r2 that was used to find Neptune.
neptune had been discovered before ..
That is absolutely wrong. Please check your facts before posting misinformation like this.
theories are predictions.
Wrong. You should learn what theories are before you try to claim what they are.
einstein improved the theory but didn't change.
Wrong yet again.
theres a million disproven theories.
No evidence to support such claims. Probably because you don't appear to understand what a theory is. You appear to be confusing it with an hypothesis.
the fact that things fall do not mean they are being pulled unless you can see the force(like magnetic flux)
Wrong again.
-
Hi.What proof can you show me that objects attract on earth.
The Cavendish experiment of course. That is precisely the experiment that directly tests that relationship. But there's no reason to assume, in fact its irrational to think otherwise, that gravity doesn't work on Earth given that it does work for planets
Cavendish experiment only helped newtons theory..
So what? That's what you're talking about. I.e. Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2 and that's what the Cavendish experiment directly tests. This has been explained to you many times. I suggest that you cease trying to claim that it's wrong and start trying to understand why it's right. You've been given direct experimental observations and all you do is claim that they aren't such. That's quite illogical.
-Neptune discovery based on Stonehenge ..
What??? "based on Stonehenge"? You've got to be kidding me! It's the relation F = GMm/r2 that was used to find Neptune.
neptune had been discovered before ..
That is absolutely wrong. Please check your facts before posting misinformation like this.
theories are predictions.
Wrong. You should learn what theories are before you try to claim what they are.
einstein improved the theory but didn't change.
Wrong yet again.
theres a million disproven theories.
No evidence to support such claims. Probably because you don't appear to understand what a theory is. You appear to be confusing it with an hypothesis.
the fact that things fall do not mean they are being pulled unless you can see the force(like magnetic flux)
Wrong again.
Hey clever dude.stone henge helped people predict.thats what were talking about.just because ur all phd whatevers,ur to arrogant to accept anything other than GR and Newtonian laws.if u research both,u might find theyre both flawed and this is mentioned many times by scientists over many years.look into liquids under different atmospheric pressures on other planets.
to planets.no gravity there?look into what could happen to humans if exposed to space.do they freeze or boil.i mearly asked the question-what proof do we have we are being pulled down to the earth.not one person on this site can answer that.arrogance or inquisitive?look into my theory across the internet that vacuum pressure causes atmos pressure which causes "gravity".
if gravity were so,why doesn't light bend towards the earth?hmmmm
newton law=earth is flat
Einstein theory=world is round.both incorrect but acceptable.ive done my research and its ongoing.oh and equations help people predict accurately-a theory is a theory not a fact.the theory of gravity has many theories-none proven.casimer effect is the best answer ive seen and string theory.cavendish and all other experiment showed mankind nothing.what proof do we have that we are attracted to earth!!!!!easy question and only 5 people on this site-time to move on with this as no answer available.shame.i thought this was a scientific forum.and im not a troll-im logical and untrained in physics.peace
-
how long can you lift 1 leg in the air?
what is pulling it down? vacuum pressure?
you are full of it, why?
-
how long can you lift 1 leg in the air?
what is pulling it down? vacuum pressure?
you are full of it, why?
I expected some people to have a broader view of what we don't understand.I don't mean to be cheeky,but others comment with things like what happens when we throw things up-they come down.The most misguided word always used is PULL.Prove it?Vacuum pressure would be the pressure of the air bubble that we live on with a solid crust and liquid centre consisting of metal elements.Now mimic the earth on a micro scale in a vacuum in outer space.
Impossible -I know.when you throw a rubber duck with air in it hard into water.it will sink then float.buoyancy I know.But what force is dragging it back to the surface?anti-gravity.Air around us is less dense than water but behaves in the same way as water.it deflects when we move through it.both apply force on everything form 360 degrees.so why do we believe we are pulled down?we cant see the flux of gravity and we cant see buoyancy but we can see magnetic flux.the only thing convincing us is the Cavendish experiment which only used lead-research lead and how it interacts with other materials/situations.if you seek an answer you will find it I say.peace
-
As a moderator, I would like to remind everyone to remain civil. This thread is getting a little heated.
~~~~~~~~~
Now on to the science!
gazza711, perhaps you would like to share some experimental evidence that your theory is correct. Or do you believe that experimental evidence is not important?
I don't understand your objection to the use of lead in the Cavendish experiment. You also seem to make some claims about the effects of oxygen and nitrogen on gravtiy that I don't understand. Could you clarify what the different elements do?
-
As a moderator, I would like to remind everyone to remain civil. This thread is getting a little heated.
~~~~~~~~~
Now on to the science!
gazza711, perhaps you would like to share some experimental evidence that your theory is correct. Or do you believe that experimental evidence is not important?
I don't understand your objection to the use of lead in the Cavendish experiment. You also seem to make some claims about the effects of oxygen and nitrogen on gravtiy that I don't understand. Could you clarify what the different elements do?
Sure-no one who commented answered the question.end of.they shouldnt reply if they cant answer the question with proven answers.Unfortunately nobody would understand anything other than PULL and its a waste of my time explaining where others who choose to comment should do their research first too.if I had evidence,I wouldn't be chatting openly about it here-or would I.what is your understanding of the Cavendish experiment? [;D] [;D] [;D]
-
How can you be so certain if you have no evidence?
How can you claim that the theory of gravitation is wrong because it has no evidence, when there is so much evidence for it. Even if we call into question the Cavendish experiment itself (which would be illogical, but for the sake of argument, let's say that experiment may have been flawed somehow), other similar experiments have been performed on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1896ApJ.....3..303W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://www.livescience.com/46385-new-gravitational-constant-measurement.html
It has also been shown to hold in space for every system we have studied in depth...
-
How can you be so certain if you have no evidence?
How can you claim that the theory of gravitation is wrong because it has no evidence, when there is so much evidence for it. Even if we call into question the Cavendish experiment itself (which would be illogical, but for the sake of argument, let's say that experiment may have been flawed somehow), other similar experiments have been performed on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1896ApJ.....3..303W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://www.livescience.com/46385-new-gravitational-constant-measurement.html
It has also been shown to hold in space for every system we have studied in depth...
Ok.gravity on earth is not the same in space.casimir effect not newton theory.
other experiments were out to measure masses and densities and proved gravitational attraction-they were all made with lead weights not apples-
the schiehallion experiment.hmm-did they use a spirit level.once again they must have used lead as plumb lines would've been lead at that time.hmmm.lead/metal/conductor or equivalent as well as when a man goes straight up and holding a stick and weight for example,he isn't really going straight up vertically.if two men dug a hole each 5 metres apart and dug down far enough,the holes would meet.thus proving the experiment to not prove attraction.show me a experiment where theres attraction without using a metal or conductive material.water carries current and is magnetic plus there are stronger and weaker (gravity)points all over the earth.
-
How can you be so certain if you have no evidence?
How can you claim that the theory of gravitation is wrong because it has no evidence, when there is so much evidence for it. Even if we call into question the Cavendish experiment itself (which would be illogical, but for the sake of argument, let's say that experiment may have been flawed somehow), other similar experiments have been performed on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1896ApJ.....3..303W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://www.livescience.com/46385-new-gravitational-constant-measurement.html
It has also been shown to hold in space for every system we have studied in depth...
Ok.gravity on earth is not the same in space.casimir effect not newton theory.
other experiments were out to measure masses and densities and proved gravitational attraction-they were all made with lead weights not apples-
the schiehallion experiment.hmm-did they use a spirit level.once again they must have used lead as plumb lines would've been lead at that time.hmmm.lead/metal/conductor or equivalent as well as when a man goes straight up and holding a stick and weight for example,he isn't really going straight up vertically.if two men dug a hole each 5 metres apart and dug down far enough,the holes would meet.thus proving the experiment to not prove attraction.show me a experiment where theres attraction without using a metal or conductive material.water carries current and is magnetic plus there are stronger and weaker (gravity)points all over the earth.
How can we be taight that gravity pulls when we cant prove it-same question you asked me-except all the other planets show exactly what temp/pressure can do to a planet.buoyancy is gravity (on earth)and its not the same as space attraction