Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 08:50:50

Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 08:50:50
Do any one can prove the existence of force of gravity?
How can you describe the effectiveness of gravity in the universe?
I think there is no gravity in this world
Please comment and guide me if i am wrong
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Soul Surfer on 15/11/2010 08:57:43
You are wrong!  Please explain as clearly and fully a possible why you consider that the rest of science is wrong about this and then we may be able to help you.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 09:11:20
if the gravity exists then it should attract the objects (heavy and light) at the same rate but the lighter objects do not appear to admit this force like dust,smoke etc
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 09:16:47
Lighter objects don't seem to fall because they're so tiny that the air molecules bouncing around is enough to keep them floating.  Heavier objects are much bigger than the air molecules and so they are unaffected by them.

If you dropped some dust and a bowling ball in a vacuum, where there is no air, they'd take the same amount of time to reach the ground.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 09:20:37
Here's a youtube of the Mythbusters testing this concept.  They use a feather (which is very light and effected by air) and a hammer:

In a vacuum they fall at the same rate.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 09:32:15
I 100 % agree with you in vacuum they fall at the same rate
what causes the difference in the behavior of object
Air causes the difference
Actually gravity is dependent of air and the actual force is air not the gravity
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 09:42:38
If the force was caused by air, all things would fall in exactly the same way in a vacuum.  This isn't true, since things on the moon in a vacuum fall more slowly than things on the earth in a vacuum.

The only consistent answer is that there's a force that depends on mass and another force that depends on air.  The mass-dependent force is gravity.  The air-dependent force is air resistance.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 10:06:02
As you said that the air is playing the role of resistive force then in vacuum gravitational force should be more effective 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: QuantumClue on 15/11/2010 10:34:37
If you are asking why gravity does  not overcome air, it does. The object eventually reaches ground zero. Air resistence only prelongs the fall.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 10:44:16
NO As JP said that Lighter objects don't seem to fall because they're so tiny that the air molecules bouncing around is enough to keep them floating.
Then if we assume that there is no air just like in vacuum then the tiny particles should come down if the gravity exists
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 10:54:39
As you said that the air is playing the role of resistive force then in vacuum gravitational force should be more effective 

No.  Gravitational force only depends on mass.  It's completely independent of what air is there.

Total force is the sum of gravitational force and air resistance (and any other forces that might be there).  It is total force that determines how the object behaves. 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 11:09:14
I am still confused
if the gravitational force only depends on mass and independent of air then why do a massive objects fall down more rapidly in presence of air then much slower in vacuum although the there is no resistive medium in vacuum.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 11:12:47
I am still confused
if the gravitational force only depends on mass and independent of air then why do a massive objects fall down more rapidly in presence of air then much slower in vacuum although the there is no resistive medium in vacuum.

Can you give an example?
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 11:25:49
As you said that gravitational force depends only on mass and air is performing the role of resistive force then if we remove the air from the system then falling object should take much more less time to reach on the surface because there is no resistive force at the moment, gravitational force should attract the falling object more rapidly.
 if we throw  an object from the top of the building it will cover the distance to reach on the surface of the earth very quickly on the other hand if we throw that stone in a system where there is no air, it will take more time to reach on the surface although the gravity is constant for both the system then why there is a difference in behavior of falling object.   
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: QuantumClue on 15/11/2010 11:34:07
NO As JP said that Lighter objects don't seem to fall because they're so tiny that the air molecules bouncing around is enough to keep them floating.
Then if we assume that there is no air just like in vacuum then the tiny particles should come down if the gravity exists
If you take into consideration gravity is very weak, then of course if you apply enough resistence it can overcome the power of gravity. To understand the magnitude of gravity, just place a paper clip and take a very small magnet. Place the paper clip on the ground and see if the magnet will attract it... That tiny magnet is overcoming the power of the entire earth!

And where are particles coming down in the vacuum? I am confused by this.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 15/11/2010 12:20:01
 If you take into consideration gravity is very weak, then of course if you apply enough resistence it can overcome the power of gravity. To understand the magnitude of gravity, just place a paper clip and take a very small magnet. Place the paper clip on the ground and see if the magnet will attract it... That tiny magnet is overcoming the power of the entire earth

As you admitted that the gravity is very weak force, a magnet can overcome on this force.On one side it is strong enough that whole the universe is controlled and governed by this gravitational force and on the other hand it is so weak that a small magnet can overcome on it. How it is possible?
the magnitude of force is same but the results are different for different conditions.
Actually my point of view is that there is no gravity in this world because it fails to explain many things
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: QuantumClue on 15/11/2010 12:47:47
Celestial objects don't have the gravitational pull they would on objects on earth - there are signs of gravitational influences of our nearest celestial body, the moon, however, planets, star systems ect are all subject to the inverse square law, meaning gravity's grip weakens over large distances, so your theoretical application is invalid.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 15/11/2010 13:19:59
Actually my point of view is that there is no gravity in this world because it fails to explain many things

Clearly, there is gravity.  It doesn't explain everything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bill S on 15/11/2010 15:35:26
syedbukhari39, here's a suggestion. Read Mark McCutcheon's "The Final Theory", (don't pay full price for it, you might wish you hadn't).  He believes there is no gravity, and explains why.  When you have finished picking his arguments to bits, see where you stand on the subject of gravity. [::)]
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2010 19:21:38
We have been here before.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=10285.0
It was bollocks then, and it still is.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: maffsolo on 16/11/2010 03:39:51
F=M*A
 
M is Mass in units of KiloGrams
A is Gravity in unit of m/s²

F is Force KG*m/s² ...or... a force called a  Newton

Earths gravity is measured and defined in units of acceleration, not in units of force.

Its affects on any mass of any size is a constantly acceleration of 9.81 meters per second squared
The acceleration's rate of change, will be the same, on any mass in a vacuum in the same gravitational field. 

Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 10:44:17
but question is that why is gravity dependent of air?
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: imatfaal on 16/11/2010 11:02:59
but question is that why is gravity dependent of air?
  - it isn't.  Gravity 'depends' on mass and distance.  Perhaps read up on the basics on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_force)
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 11:07:21
According to gravitational law, very massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
By using the formula G*m1*m2/d²
 Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 16/11/2010 12:53:35
According to gravitational law, every very massive particle [with mass] in the universe attracts every other massive particle [with mass] with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Gravitation isn't limited to large objects - every atom (or any other particle with mass) attracts every other.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.
In what way could you possibly think that an eclipse would have any impact on gravitation?
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Soul Surfer on 16/11/2010 12:58:18
The solar system does not work with the gravitational force alone.  You need to include the angular momentum of the moon and earth as they orbit each other to balance this gravitational force and the angular momentum of the moon the earth and the sun as they to orbit each other.  This has been fully understood and precisely predicted for hundreds of years.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 13:16:07
According to assumption the force that is controlling the whole universe is gravity as scientists said, My point of view is that if it is true than how can you justify and balance the forces between earth moon and sun.
In total sun eclipse the moon is in between the sun and earth in this case sun and earth both are  attracting the moon, then how do the moon is surviving 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 13:24:12
The solar system does not work with the gravitational force alone.  You need to include the angular momentum of the moon and earth as they orbit each other to balance this gravitational force and the angular momentum of the moon the earth and the sun as they to orbit each other.  This has been fully understood and precisely predicted for hundreds of years.
As i understand we are able to explain all mysterious things and phenomenas through another mysterious force i.e gravity
 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Soul Surfer on 16/11/2010 13:43:55
syedbukhari39  These things are in no way mysterious and gravitation comes naturally out of an understanding of the basic processes that drive our universe there are in fact very few numbers and coupling parameters that are needed.  Read the book "just six numbers" and that may help you understand how the rest of the scientific community understand how things work.  Just because you do not know or understand something that does not mean that it is not understandable.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 13:56:12
I am just discussing the gravity as mystery because this is just theory and there are many flaws in it and it also fails to explain many behaviors i will discuss it after a week
thanks
syedbukhari39  These things are in no way mysterious and gravitation comes naturally out of an understanding of the basic processes that drive our universe there are in fact very few numbers and coupling parameters that are needed.  Read the book "just six numbers" and that may help you understand how the rest of the scientific community understand how things work.  Just because you do not know or understand something that does not mean that it is not understandable.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Soul Surfer on 16/11/2010 18:10:53
From the nature and development of this conversation I think that I should issue a Troll warning.  I have reported this topic
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 16/11/2010 18:53:53
It's clear that this topic is not a question. As no theory has even been proposed, it's not worthy of a New Theory. I'm moving it to Chat.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2010 19:45:38
According to gravitational law, every very massive particle [with mass] in the universe attracts every other massive particle [with mass] with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Gravitation isn't limited to large objects - every atom (or any other particle with mass) attracts every other.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.
In what way could you possibly think that an eclipse would have any impact on gravitation?
In a technical sense (like this thread)  "massive" means "having (any) mass".
However since this thread is balderdash it hardly matters.
Syedbukhari,
you have asked the question the wrong way round about the Sun and Earth.
Since we know that they are spinning round eachother, how come the Earth (which is the lighter of the two) doesn't get flung off into space?


The answer is that it's held in place by gravity.
Without gravity the earth and sun would have parted company long ago.

The same applies to the moon and the earth and the eclipses have nothing much to do with it. If I put my hand over something I cast a shadow on it, but that doesn't stop gravity holding it down.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bill S on 16/11/2010 20:12:06
 If there is trollery afoot, perhaps this thread should be left to expire quietly.  However, I have some sympathy with Syedbukhari, because I have spent quite a lot of time wrestling with the fact that gravity appears to be a force, or not a force, according to taste, or more precisely, according to the point one is making.
Also, as far as the eclipse scenario is concerned Syedbukhari may be making the point that it is then that the sun and Earth would seem to be in direct conflict over "possession" of the moon.
Finally, Soul Surfer, I totally agree that "Just because you do not know or understand something that does not mean that it is not understandable",but nor does it mean that you should not struggle to achieve that understanding, even if others find your inability frustrating.  Amen.  [xx(]
 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 09:13:08
In a technical sense (like this thread)  "massive" means "having (any) mass".

Yes, I had understood that be the case, but as Syedbukhari appeared to be struggling with everyday English terminology in places I left it at that.

"...the Earth (which is the lighter of the two)" - shouldn't this be heavier?

[It is perfectly normal that one might] struggle to achieve an understanding, even if others find your inability frustrating.

I agree whole-heartedly Bill.  Syedbukhari, I think you have made some poor assumptions that have led you astray in this case; that is all.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Soul Surfer on 17/11/2010 21:03:59
My long and detailed experience of internet trolls is they often start by feigning poor English but rapidly change as they manage to succeed in getting other members of the chat page to argue with each other.  They live on the creation of arguments and dissent between others.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2010 07:20:40


"...the Earth (which is the lighter of the two)" - shouldn't this be heavier?


No
The earth is lighter than the sun (unless you don't believe in gravity).
The last thread on this was closed because it was clear that Fleep was a troll or an idiot (or both). I think this thread should suffer the same fate.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 18/11/2010 08:27:33
I think this thread should suffer the same fate.

It does seem to be heading in that general direction. Rats! I think I've just spun it up again.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 18/11/2010 10:45:07
"...the Earth (which is the lighter of the two)" - shouldn't this be heavier?
No
The earth is lighter than the sun (unless you don't believe in gravity).
D'oh!
Dumbass here read it as Earth or Moon (not Sun)! Started thinking about density and, well confusion took hold! [;D]
*although actually, having now been converted to syed's view, it is clear that gravity is a sham!* [;)]
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 18/11/2010 11:44:55
Gravity is clearly a conspiracy invented by those who want to sell weight loss products!
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 18/11/2010 17:58:10
Sir Isaac Newton told us why
An apple falls down from the sky,
And from this fact, it’s very plain,
All other objects do the same.
A brick, a bolt, a bar, a cup
Invariably fall down, not up,
And every common working tool
Is governed by the self-same rule.
So when you handle tools up there,
Let your watchword be “Take Care “.
If at work you drop a spanner,
It travels in a downward manner.
At work, a fifth of accidents or more
Iillustrate old Newton’s law,
But one thing he forgot to add,
The damage won’t be half as bad
If you are wearing proper clothes,
Especially on your head and toes.
These hats and shoes are there to save
The wearer from an early grave.
So best feet forward and take care
About the kind of shoes you wear,
It’s better to be sure than dead,
So get a hat and keep your head.
Don’t think to go without is brave;
The effects of gravity can be grave….

UK public information film from the fifties.

Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 18/11/2010 20:12:47
Sir Isaac Newton told us why
An apple falls down from the sky,
And from this fact, it’s very plain,
All other objects do the same.
A brick, a bolt, a bar, a cup
Invariably fall down, not up,
And every common working tool
Is governed by the self-same rule.

This is the point that i am trying to explain, when Newton saw an apple falling from the tree, he made a final decesion to make a theory without observing further things and put the whole science in a dark hole
I am wondering why we are not trying to make the use of mind and logic.
We are worshing this like a holy cocept or book and do not tolerate to listen any thing against this theory and this behavior unable us to discover the truth.
Why does a hydrogen filled balloon escape from the influnce of this powerfull force of gravity on the  other hand sun,earth and moon are dependent of this spirtual force for their survival.
Try to get the answer.I will be back after two days and will tell you the real medium that is controlling the entire process.
I am very thankful to the people those trying and want to know the truth.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 18/11/2010 21:17:01
I will be back after two days and will tell you the real medium that is controlling the entire process.

We await your return with bated breath  [;D]

Please be prepared to show us the math.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2010 07:18:59
I will be back after two days and will tell you the real medium that is controlling the entire process.

We await your return with bated breath  [;D]

Please be prepared to show us the math.

Or to be laughed at.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: JP on 19/11/2010 12:03:25
Some light reading in the meantime. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: imatfaal on 19/11/2010 14:10:01
 [;D]

31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 19/11/2010 14:26:55
Some light reading in the meantime. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

I think we should encourage point 13!  -
"10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory."
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 19/11/2010 18:35:14
Some light reading in the meantime. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

We may have to make that a sticky.

I think he left out;

"Using Mainstream as a pejorative adjective"

"Claiming The Science Channel is an authoritative source."
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 20/11/2010 08:53:13
Whole the universe is designed with a great symmetry, planning and followed by some principals. Nothing can happen without any reason. Same is the case with the falling apple;
When Newton saw an apple falling from the tree, he tried his best to get the result but failed to do so. Then he finally put the responsibility of this falling behavior on an invisible, occult, mysterious and hypothetical force. Newton totally ignores the behaviors of other suspended and up going objects in the atmosphere. Later on he put and fitted this force to all those places and systems that were difficult to explain like solar system.
According to gravitational law, every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
By using the formula G*m1*m2/d²
 Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun as shown in the above picture.

Now discuss the effectiveness of Gravitation Force on the Earth.

Let’s consider the example of the Newton’s apple, indeed it required some reason to fell down. Actually every thing requires some medium to perform an action except air, light, water and ether. When the apple became denser it lost its connection with the tree because it became denser, when it lost its connection with the tree it became associated with the new medium i.e. air. Now the density of air was less than the density of apple it caused the apple to fell down because of density difference not the gravity.
Let’s take another example, fill one balloon with atmospheric air and the other with the hydrogen or any other lighter gas than air. Now release both the balloons in the atmosphere you will see the ordinary air filled balloon will fell down on the surface and the balloon fill with lighter gas will get upward direction. Balloons have the same sizes and material then what causes the difference in their behaviors although the gravity is there that can force the balloons to come down but fails to do so.
How can you justify different behaviors under one powerful gravitational force that is on one side controlling the whole solar system and on the other hand fails to control a small balloon?
Now take another example
Drop a stone from the top of the building in to the water tank it will fell down because the stone is more dense than air and when it touches the second medium that is water it will continue its distance and will rest on the bottom of the tank because here again the stone is more dense than water. There are many more examples to discuss this topic.
By considering the above examples it is quite clear there is nothing like gravitational force. The only thing that causes the change in behaviors is the difference in densities of medium. The factor that is controlling the change in state of the objects is the density difference. If the gravitational force exists then it should attract a less dense object more quickly and rapidly than a denser object.
As we know the theory of gravity is just a theory not a law and there are many flaws in this theory. It is quite interesting that no one can calculate gravity for every object.

There are many more examples to elaborate the flaws present in gravitational theory. We are presenting the Gravity just like James bond, who is present everywhere and controlling the whole system but does not exist in real life.
On the other hand by following the basic principal of density difference between the object and the medium you can easily explain the behaviors of the object i.e. any thing that is less dense than the reference medium will go up and the denser will go down.
This concept is quite clear, logical, and observable.

 

Before carrying out an experiment we have to determine and mentioned the basic parameters and standard.
In Cavendish experiment we do not know the following parameters
1)   Air Pressure
2)   Direction of air
3)   Masses and the densities of M and m
4)   Distance between M and m
5)   Height of the  rope/string
6)   Nature of the string
7)   Polarity of M and m
8)   Material (iron,steel,plastic wood etc) of M and m
9)   Is it shows the same results for different materials as the gravity is constant for all the objects?
10)   Is this experiment gives the same results all the time in all conditions?

Cavendish experiment helped the scientists to explain the solar system and they adopted the results without any further investigation
We should consider that there is nothing infinite and absolute in this world except God. The concept of infinite space and infinite time is wrong and also the concept of infinite universe is wrong. The universe is surrounded by a dense cloudy material that is in motion. and all the planets moon and sun are moving due to the circular motion of this cloudy material . Above the blanket of this dense material Allah Almighty is Present, Governing and controlling the whole Universe with extreme discipline.
This can be explained by the following example:

 
                                       
                                    Behavior of different balls on water surface


Use a tank filled with water and stirred it with stirrer after some time remove the stirrer from the water tank now put some balls on the surface of water at different distance and put one ball in the center . You will observe that the balls nearer to center will complete their rotation in short time as compared to the balls away from the center and the central ball will only rotate around its axis. Same is the case with our Solar system. The dense cloudy material is in circular motion and all the planets, sun and moon are revolving around their orbits. When this circular motion of dense material become finish then whole the universe will collide with each other and the final day will become i.e. Judgment Day.     
There are many more examples to prove and support this theory of difference in densities.
There is always some chance of improvement in every field. In today’s science, we are improving, upgrading and précising the standards in order to get the better and improved results.
I am presenting this for an open debate. I will be pleased if any one point out the flaws in it. But the objections should be logical and based on facts.
Let's try to discuss it with open mind and heart not just only for opposition.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2010 16:55:19
"In Cavendish experiment we do not know the following parameters
1)   Air Pressure
2)   Direction of air
3)   Masses and the densities of M and m
4)   Distance between M and m
5)   Height of the  rope/string
6)   Nature of the string
7)   Polarity of M and m
8)   Material (iron,steel,plastic wood etc) of M and m
9)   Is it shows the same results for different materials as the gravity is constant for all the objects?
10)   Is this experiment gives the same results all the time in all conditions?"
In the real world, rather than one where gravity doesn't exist and where this whole thread makes sense, we do know most of those things.

Cavendish was a good experimenter and will have logged most of them like the masses and distances.
There are some like #10 which no single experiment can show, but we have been using spring balances (and the more modern equivalents) for a long time. We know by direct experiment that gravity hasn't changed much since Cavendish's day.
We lso have historical records of eclipses and such that show that the moon's orbit hasn't changed much for centuries and we know from things like Stonehenge that the orbit of the earth round the Sun hasn't changed much in several thousand years.
That's not proof that it will never change, but its perfectly good evidence that it's stable.
You, on the other hand, have offered precisely no evidence to support your strange notions.

Incidentally I suspect that, if God existed, He would prefer to be left out of this.

We are more likely to be convinced by evidence and sound maths than by trying to appeal to God as a witness (Unless, of course, He actually turns up and tells us you are right).


Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 20/11/2010 19:23:15
According to gravitational law, very massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
By using the formula G*m1*m2/d²
 Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.


It is very simple, as Soulsurfer wrote earlier our solar system is explained by relative movement (momentum) of all particles and the 4 forces interactions between them. The relative movement of the moon to the sun keep it from falling to the sun... There is nothing to argue about the existence of gravity... The question is how gravity is related to the other forces? Because it is... The other forces obey to the relativity of time... which is a direct effect of gravity and acceleration (velocity is a result of acceleration)...
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: rwjefferson on 20/11/2010 22:52:40
...when Newton saw an apple falling from the tree, he made a final decesion to make a theory without observing further things and put the whole science in a dark hole. 

It is not Newton that puts us in side a dark hole; it is dogma.  Newton did not know the math to show time flows; Einstein did.  Einstein did not know the math to show space is also fluent; 

Earth's electromagnetic atomsphere holds ~120 times the energy of the relative quantum wind.  As I take wing and float up on fluxions of fluent air, I feel force as gravity in addition to force as levity. 

What do you call the force of all and everything that holds you firmly hear on earth?

I serve
ItS
r~
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 20/11/2010 23:59:09
Time...  

And about the negative pressure from the other similar subject post, the supernova observations and results just describe the dark energy as a negative pressure (still from an unknown source)...

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28445
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Geezer on 21/11/2010 08:09:09
CPT and rwj,

Kindly stick to the subject.

Please feel free to launch other topics if you wish to propose a new theory.

Thanks!
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 21/11/2010 11:31:09
"In Cavendish experiment we do not know the following parameters
1)   Air Pressure
2)   Direction of air
3)   Masses and the densities of M and m
4)   Distance between M and m
5)   Height of the  rope/string
6)   Nature of the string
7)   Polarity of M and m
8)   Material (iron,steel,plastic wood etc) of M and m
9)   Is it shows the same results for different materials as the gravity is constant for all the objects?
10)   Is this experiment gives the same results all the time in all conditions?"
In the real world, rather than one where gravity doesn't exist and where this whole thread makes sense, we do know most of those things.

Cavendish was a good experimenter and will have logged most of them like the masses and distances.
There are some like #10 which no single experiment can show, but we have been using spring balances (and the more modern equivalents) for a long time. We know by direct experiment that gravity hasn't changed much since Cavendish's day.

The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 1798 — 71 years after Newton's death — by Henry Cavendish (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Michell. He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell by timing the beam's oscillation. Their faint attraction to other balls placed alongside the beam was detectable by the deflection it caused. Cavendish's aim was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction. In retrospect, the density that Cavendish calculated implies a value for G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3/kg/s2.[5]
The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.[3][6]
In the January 5, 2007 issue of Science (page 74), the report "Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity" (J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich) describes a new measurement of the gravitational constant. According to the abstract: "Here, we report a value of G = 6.693 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10−11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared."[7] (Wikipedia)
From the above history, it is quite clear that Cavendish wanted to calculate the density of the Earth rather to calculate the Gravitational Constant.
It is quite clear that G is dependent of density and acceleration due to gravity it dependent of G.
We have estimated value of G not the exact one and we are rotating the whole science on the basis of G which is dependent of density.
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.
What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists.
 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 21/11/2010 12:23:00

We lso have historical records of eclipses and such that show that the moon's orbit hasn't changed much for centuries and we know from things like Stonehenge that the orbit of the earth round the Sun hasn't changed much in several thousand years.
That's not proof that it will never change, but its perfectly good evidence that it's stable.
You, on the other hand, have offered precisely no evidence to support your strange notions.

Incidentally I suspect that, if God existed, He would prefer to be left out of this.

We are more likely to be convinced by evidence and sound maths than by trying to appeal to God as a witness (Unless, of course, He actually turns up and tells us you are right).



The point that i am trying to expose is about the possession o f Moon,when it is exact in between the Sun and Earth. As Soul Surfer describe that the Sun, moon and the earth is not only depend on gravity but there is also an angular momentum as well. As the angular momentum and the gravity is constant in between Sun, Moon and the Earth as they are moving and rotating with a constant speed. Then there should be a disturbance in their rotation and motion when there is total Sun eclipse and Moon eclipse because the net force is constant. In this phenomena there is clear  division in forces because at this stage there is conflict of possession of Moon between between Earth and the Sun.
I have provided the examples to support the density difference principal as you claimed that i am presenting this phenomena (density difference)without any logic or example, i think it is quite clear to understand this phenomena with the help of the examples that i have mentioned and discuss in my theory.This principal of density difference is prominent and effective to explain the difference in behavior of different objects as compared to the gravity.     
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2010 12:56:11
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
On the other hand the experiment has been repeated with other materials.
The value measured for G is the same.
The fact that we can't measure it very accurately just reflects that fact that it's small.

Gravity always attracts. There's no repulsive gravity (at least there's none we know about) So it always adds up.
Electrostatic forces on the other hand are both attractive and repulsive so, for large uncharged bodies the overall effect is small.

That's why the effect of gravity can hold galaxies together even though it's a weak force.
I don't see why you think eclipses are anything special.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: rosy on 21/11/2010 13:01:50
Quote
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.

Think a bit harder about the relative sizes (and crucially masses) of the objects you're considering. It seems to me that your inability to grasp how gravity works may stem from a failure to comprehend just how massive planets and stars are relative to anything used in a laboratory experiment.

I would seriously suggest that if you want to understand this you sit down, probably with something like an A-level mechanics text book, and work through the maths of Newtonian gravity, and calculate for yourself the forces it predicts between sun and earth, earth and moon, two 1 kg lead balls, etc., and also circular orbits and centripetal force. Then come back in a few weeks, if you're still puzzled, and ask some more questions.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 21/11/2010 13:43:17
Quote
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.

Think a bit harder about the relative sizes (and crucially masses) of the objects you're considering. It seems to me that your inability to grasp how gravity works may stem from a failure to comprehend just how massive planets and stars are relative to anything used in a laboratory experiment.

I would seriously suggest that if you want to understand this you sit down, probably with something like an A-level mechanics text book, and work through the maths of Newtonian gravity, and calculate for yourself the forces it predicts between sun and earth, earth and moon, two 1 kg lead balls, etc., and also circular orbits and centripetal force. Then come back in a few weeks, if you're still puzzled, and ask some more questions.
hanks for your suggestion:
I think you have a broad vision, please first read the points that i have identified against the gravity and also give me the justification of Hydrogen filled balloon that successes ed  to escape from this occult and great force. 
Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx, which is twice the force between Earth an Moon.
Also guide and correct me about this calculated value, this value is teasing me about the Solar system.
I also request you to give the directions, method and basic parameter of Cavendish experiment because my knowledge is of laboratory level and i want to start it from its beginning.
Thanks
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: rosy on 21/11/2010 14:23:25
Ah. I see. That's your problem... it's not actually a problem at all.

What you're missing about the earth and the moon is that the moon can be considered as being in orbit about the sun (the moon is, after all, going around the sun once per year in much the same way as the earth is), but because the earth and the moon are close together, the moon's trajectory around the sun is disturbed by its trajectory around the earth. The earth's trajectory is also disturbed by the moon, but its a smaller wobble because the earth's mass is so much more than the moon's.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 22/11/2010 13:00:50
Ah. I see. That's your problem... it's not actually a problem at all.

What you're missing about the earth and the moon is that the moon can be considered as being in orbit about the sun (the moon is, after all, going around the sun once per year in much the same way as the earth is), but because the earth and the moon are close together, the moon's trajectory around the sun is disturbed by its trajectory around the earth. The earth's trajectory is also disturbed by the moon, but its a smaller wobble because the earth's mass is so much more than the moon's.

The six numbers that controlling the universe are:
nu (a ratio of the strength of electrical forces that hold atoms together compared to the force of gravity which is 10 to the 37th power)
Epsilon (how firmly the atomic nuclei bind together which is 0.004)
Omega (amount of material in the universe)
Lambda (force of cosmic "antigravity" discovered in 1998, which is a very small number)
Q (ratio of two fundamental energies, which is 1/100,000)
Delta (number of spatial dimensions in our universe)
1st one is very large, about 10:36, as appeared the 1st force is very important. If there is any change/unbalance in this force it can be very dangerous.
According to Gravitational Law, the force is inversely proportional to the distance. In case of Sun, Moon and Earth, the distance between Earth, Moon and Sun is constant but it varies in case of Sun and Moon.
The force of attraction between Sun and Moon is twice the force between Earth and Moon. When the distance between Sun and Moon changes it also changes the force between them according to the Gravitational Law, if there is any change in force it should disturb the whole system because all other parameters and forces are constant or very minor in this system.
I am still waiting for your answer on other point that I have mentioned against gravity in my theory
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 22/11/2010 13:13:35
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
[/quot
Then it is clear, the force is dependent of density
Am i right?
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: rosy on 22/11/2010 13:29:01
Quote
I am still waiting for your answer on other point that I have mentioned against gravity in my theory

You're not going to get an answer, because you have already made it very clear that you do not in the least understand the current theory as it applies to the orbits of the earth and moon about the sun. Your objections are born of a lack of comprehension and there is no evidence here at all that you have any interesting new insight.

This is not a suitable format for filling the gaps in your education, and I haven't the time. You will have to do it yourself, I repeat my suggestion that you start with some elementary mechanics.

Go away and do your homework, make an effort to actually understand the current theory, and then maybe (if you still persist in "disagreeing with" gravity, which I doubt) you'll have something interesting to contribute.

You need to understand this:
Quote
According to Gravitational Law, the force is inversely proportional to the distance. In case of Sun, Moon and Earth, the distance between Earth, Moon and Sun is constant but it varies in case of Sun and Moon.
No. In reality, rather than a small object orbiting around a large object, it's important to bear in mind that both are in orbit around that centre of mass of the system. If the small object is much smaller than the large object, the centre of mass of the system may be close to the centre of mass of the large object, but the two are never actually the same, and there is always a perturbation in the path of the large object as well as that of the small object. In short: the sun-moon distance is not constant; the sun-earth distance is not constant; the sun-(earth-moon centre of mass) distance is constant.

Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: rosy on 22/11/2010 13:38:13
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
Then it is clear, the force is dependent of density
Am i right?
Do you mean:
Quote
Then it is clear, the force is dependent on density
or:
Quote
Then it is clear, the force is independent of density

The force is completely independent of density, it depends only on mass. Whether you make the spheres of lead, plastic or cheddar cheese is without any importance, the results will be the same. However, because lead is very dense it is easier to use because the balls are smaller (and thus the centres of mass can be moved closer together without the edges of the spheres getting in the way).
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 22/11/2010 14:40:30
Go away and do your homework, make an effort to actually understand the current theory, and then maybe (if you still persist in "disagreeing with" gravity, which I doubt) you'll have something interesting to contribute.

After 3 pages of nonsense and circular arguments, it might be time to lock this thread until the OP has taken the repeated good advice given to him/her.
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2010 21:42:43
The last thread on this subject got locked and the poster (fleep) got banned.
The OP here has contributed nothing but a muddled lack of understanding and an example of how not to learn.
What would the site lose by banning Syedbukhari?
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 24/11/2010 12:53:57
Galileo was the first man who told us about the behavior of falling objects having different weight.
 
 Galileo dropped a cannon ball and wooden ball from the top of the Tower of Pisa.

This story is apocryphal, while some of his earlier predecessors actually performed this experiment, and found in fact a slight difference in the time the two balls struck the ground.
Although the Leaning Tower of Pisa is there but no one successes to do it again. There is only one possibility available for both balls fall down at the same time when both have the same densities, otherwise there should always a difference in the time.

Archimedes' principle, light and sound also depends on the density of the medium, and on the basis of this density factor we are calculating and getting almost 100 % results.
As light and sound depends on the density of the medium then why we are trying to isolate the objects having some weight from the density factor?
In case of bulky objects this factor becomes more prominent and describes the motion of the object more precisely as compared to the Gravity.
The speed of falling object is directly proportional to the difference in densities of the object and the medium.
It can be understand by the following example:
Drop a ball from the top of the building in to the swimming poll, it will start its motion from zero then it will attain the speed according to the difference in density of the medium and the density of the ball. When this ball hits on the surface of the water it will no more able to travel its distance although the mysterious Gravity is there then why it ends up its journey?
Its very simple and understandable, the density difference of the medium (water) and the ball is negative at this time that causes the ball to float on the surface of water rather to continue its journey.
It is quite simple to understand the behavior of different objects on the basis of density difference.
 Let’s take another example:
Take a pipette and fill it with water, now put the thumb on the top of the pipette. You will see, water will suspend in the pipette. Why it is so although Gravity is there?
When you remove the thumb it will go down.
Helium balloons in cars work on the same principal of density difference.
My point of view is that density is the key factor that decides the difference in behavior of objects not the gravity.
Why I am considering the everyday life example because the origin of theory of gravity was a falling apple, no other solid observation or logic and mathematics involved in creation of this theory. In order to support this theory calculus was invented and Cavendish performed an experiment which is still doubtful.
if the forum thinks i am wasting their time then you may close this topic. 
Title: Discussion against gravity
Post by: peppercorn on 24/11/2010 14:05:22
I can not after all the previous efforts, be bothered to read all the above.

I just will go as far as saying, w.r.t.:
Posted by: syedbukhari39
"Drop a ball from the top of the building. ...It will [accelerate] from zero [until it attains its maximum] speed according to the difference in density [between air and the ball]."
This is wrong.

If this was the case a dart shaped object, made of the same amount of the same type of material as whatever a bowling ball is composed of, would reach the same maximum velocity.
It won't.  Surely you see this is down to air resistance?

"If the forum thinks I am wasting their time then you may close this topic."
- I am taking you advice and locking this thread now. If you want to PM me giving in one short sentence an outline of where 200+ odd years of science has gone wrong, or adding some other logical reason why the thread should stay open then please do.  But please keep it short!

Database Error

Please try again. If you come back to this error screen, report the error to an administrator.
Back