0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
AbstractThis Resource Letter provides an introduction to some of the main current topics in experimental tests of general relativity as well as to some of the historical literature. It is intended to serve as a guide to the field for upper-division undergraduate and graduate students, both theoretical and experimental, and for workers in other fields of physics who wish learn about experimental gravity. The topics covered include alternative theories of gravity, tests of the principle of equivalence, solar-system and binary-pulsar tests, searches for new physics in gravitational arenas, and tests of gravity in new regimes, involving astrophysics and gravitational radiation.[/quotes]Since it's quite unclear what you meant when you wrote Newton's law and GR are different (which any moron knows) I can only guess that it means that you don't know a great deal about GR. Therefore I'll explain the usefulness of this article. It's a well known fact that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) is a relativistic theory of gravity. It reduces to Newton's theory of gravity for slowly moving particles and weak gravitational fields. Therefore the correctness of GR means the correctness of Newton's theory within its domain of applicability. The only thing wrong with Newton's theory is in its precision. But that precision is so small that it took over a century to detect it from observations of precession of the orbit of Mercury.So. What was your evidence that your so-called theory is correct and why would there he a non-zero net force on a body due to atmospheric pressure and why is it directed to the center of the Earth? I await your brilliant response.
By the way. The atmosphere on the moon is so small as to be considered a good vacuum. The atmosphere on the moon is about the same as that which the international space station exists in. The atmospheric pressure inside the station is much greater than that of the moon yet there's no gravitational force in the space station. So your claim that the gravitational field of the moon is caused by its atmosphere is very poor. And again I remind you that the gravitational force has a direction to it since the source of gravity is mass. The gravitational force on objects outside the earths volume are directed towards the center of the earth. If gravity was due to atmospheric pressure then since the net force on an object due to pressure is zero it won't accelerate so any so-called gravitational force on it is zero. A fact that you and your friend seem to have intentionally avoided. In fact you and your friend have never given a mathematical derivation proving anything that you've claimed to be true. All you two have based your arguments on is what you "think" or "believe" to be the case. That's certainly no basis for a scientific theory. By the way, the fact that physicists and physics students don't do the Cavendish experiment themselves does in no way mean that we're not aware of the results or should for any reason not trust them. They are but one test among many. If you were a physicist you wouldn't make such ignorant comments about doing things for yourselves. There are far too many things that have to be tested that are relegated to experimental physicists. They're the ones who have the time, money, expertise and resources to design and construct experiments. Besides there has been a great deal of evidence of other kinds since that experiment was done including measuring the strength of the gravitational field by placing satellites in orbit. A satellite can only remain at a set distance if its orbital speed is consistent with that derived from assuming a 1/r2 dependence. That is to say that the height that a satellite needs to orbit at is determined by the gravitational force calculated from Newton's law of gravitation. And it has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure of course. The reason satellites can remain in orbit is because there is a gravitational force acting on it given by Fg = GMm/r2. Your buddy there thinks that physicists are too stupid to not have realized that he was right and the thousands of physicists who know this during the last 300 years have all be wrong and that all the experiments, satellites, tides and interplanetary probes were all misinterpreted and his and your notion of atmospheric pressure is right. Even though you have constantly refused to explain this nonsense theory of yours. E.g. take a crack at explaining tides for us and why our predictions of when there will be a high tide and low tide given to the minute was, while being accurate, was calculated using a wrong theory all these years and then explain how the atmosphere accounts for it and its correlation with the lunar cycles.There is an article which I sent for callledResource Letter PTG-1: Precision Tests of Gravity by Clifford Will, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1240 (2010); http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/78/12/10.1119/1.3481700QuoteAbstractThis Resource Letter provides an introduction to some of the main current topics in experimental tests of general relativity as well as to some of the historical literature. It is intended to serve as a guide to the field for upper-division undergraduate and graduate students, both theoretical and experimental, and for workers in other fields of physics who wish learn about experimental gravity. The topics covered include alternative theories of gravity, tests of the principle of equivalence, solar-system and binary-pulsar tests, searches for new physics in gravitational arenas, and tests of gravity in new regimes, involving astrophysics and gravitational radiation.[/quotes]Since it's quite unclear what you meant when you wrote Newton's law and GR are different (which any moron knows) I can only guess that it means that you don't know a great deal about GR. Therefore I'll explain the usefulness of this article. It's a well known fact that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) is a relativistic theory of gravity. It reduces to Newton's theory of gravity for slowly moving particles and weak gravitational fields. Therefore the correctness of GR means the correctness of Newton's theory within its domain of applicability. The only thing wrong with Newton's theory is in its precision. But that precision is so small that it took over a century to detect it from observations of precession of the orbit of Mercury.So. What was your evidence that your so-called theory is correct and why would there he a non-zero net force on a body due to atmospheric pressure and why is it directed to the center of the Earth? I await your brilliant response.You are a great man for answering the need of others.its a rare attribute and I think I need to look into a few more things.my childish comments are a result of frustrating answers where the obvious is stated.I have no experiments-just curiosity.No more from me.
There are far too many things that have to be tested that are relegated to experimental physicists.
Gravity is just the experience of atmospheric pressure as a result of the gases in our atmosphere being attracted to the extremely charged core of the earth. Plain and simple.
I get it, I get it. You read a text book so you know the answer.The world is flat because the world is flat. Gravity exists because gravity exists. God exists because you cannot prove him wrong. ........But you cannot show me gravity. You cannot take an atom apart and find gravity anywhere inside it. You cannot even explain it so that it makes full sense to yourself.
I get it, I get it. You read a text book so you know the answer.The world is flat because the world is flat. Gravity exists because gravity exists. God exists because you cannot prove him wrong. I don't believe in things. I agree with facts and remain curious until I see facts.I can show you in nature, entirely, how gravity can be explained by a completely separate electromagnetic force. I can show you the charge of the core and the crust of the Earth. I can show you that it almost identically matches the exact opposite charge of the atmosphere. I can show you that this causes a pressurized field being compressed by an external vacuum. I can show you that these gases push down on the earth by showing you altering weights based on atmospheric pressure. I can show you that if I suck air out of a straw, gravity is not able to act on the water when air pressure doesnt exist.I could use the EXACT same argument for planets being trapped in the sun's atmosphere, as the weak gravity pulling planets towards the sun while they are in a constant state of moving away from the sun argument: The dense layers of an atmosphere with a more positive charge will push downwards closer to the planetary body or star. The outer layers of an atmosphere will be far less dense. Further, the way that pressure works is that it comes from both above AND below (think being on top of water and at the bottom of sea). So when you get out a certain distance, you begin to get equal amounts of pressure from above and below and you remain suspended (floating, just like at the top of water!!). When you float on the top of water, you are staying in a place that is relative to the earth, but you are moving very rapidly with the earth in reference to space. The same effect would be taking place when you are a satellite in orbit. That is because air pressure is acting on you equally in every direction to keep you suspended in a relative position with the earth. If it were a downward force pulling you, you would fall back to earth rather quickly. And if you were to completely exit the atmosphere, the earth would pass you by in a matter of a day. But you cannot show me gravity. You cannot take an atom apart and find gravity anywhere inside it. You cannot even explain it so that it makes full sense to yourself.
There you are Mr Box, a challenge to your understanding of Box Science, let's see you answer this one without Wiki knowledge. Perhaps it would help if you explain your theory of white light?This should be interesting.
Air pressure, like water pressure, is not a one way force where air and water is acting like a fat guy sitting on top of you. They both apply pressure from every side, including below, so it doesn't really care what your shape is. The net pressure is not always downward, either. The net pressure depends on what type of matter you are. If you are helium, your net pressure is always coming from below. Your weight won't change based on dynamics because you are fully immersed in the pressurized system.
Air pressure, like water pressure, is not a one way force where air and water is acting like a fat guy sitting on top of you. They both apply pressure from every side, including below, so it doesn't really care what your shape is. ..
However, you are confusing buoyancy and gravity. As The Box points out, gravity causes buoyancy not the other way round. In the same way gravity causes air pressure not the other way round.
You clearly have no idea about physical process, your argument is a failure in all areas , you are clearly trolling and not listening to any logical reason or facts which you have been given to this argument . air pressure is NOT the cause of gravity. Air pressure does not make planets orbit and countless other things that gravity does such as the ocean attracted to the moon and tides. Your argument is quite futile .
I keep hearing that gravity causes air pressure. I understand that every text book and definition of air pressure will tell you that this is the case. But reading it, believing in it, stating it, and restating it doesn't help to define and describe the origination of gravity.