0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi. Thanks for the input. I don't profess to be exactly or always right, so questions and disputes are wlcome. My responses are between your points made, as below.Firstly, it is not strictly true that almost no elements are magnetic - what is true is that most elements are not magnetic on a large scale (i.e. all the little bits of magnetism do not line up to form one big magnet, but simply cancel themselves out, so we cannot see the magnetism on a large scale).O.K. I won't argue this, but what about the Janus and Prometheus example? There has been a considerable amount of time for attraction to have caused a collision there.======================================================Secondly, if the downward force of an object was down to atmospheric pressure, it should not exist within a vacuum chamber (i.e. things should be able to float simply by being placed in a vacuum chamber, while still remaining on this Earth - this simply does not happen).Secondly -The shuttle leaves our atmosphere and goes into the vacuum. The ship has no realization of where it is, of course, or of what is going on.The ship and everything in it, (discounting fuel consumed), is now exactly the same as it was on the tarmac. Everything had gravity in it, and it still does. The ship is pressurized with the same volume as it was sealed on the tarmac. Everything is exactly the same, until the crew removes their seat belts and begins to float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship. Back on Earth, they were able to walk to those seats. What just happened here? Why are people floating around?The ship is sealed with pressure that artificially approximates our atmosphere.The ship carried away everything that it contained when it was on the tarmac.The Earth’s gravity is still inside the people and everything else in the ship.The ship can not “know” when it is falling through space.There is no friction in space, or any way to physically measure the velocity of the fall.There is no “concept” of time or motion that the ship can “know”.The ship does not even “know” that it has left the Earth, or is in a vacuum.So, why are the unchanged people, in an unchanged ship, floating in the air?Science ascribes falling through the vacuum of space as a cause of “weightlessness”, but the word itself is only a description of the event. I think that the cause of floating is this:On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air. A real atmosphere like the one on the Earth, weighs downwards from overhead, and it “knows” where matter with gravity in it “belongs”. The bottom 3.5 miles contains half of the entire weight of the atmosphere, effectively, “trapped against the surface of the planet”. The other half of the atmosphere’s weight is spread out for many tens of miles above the bottom 50%, all the way out to the vacuum.It is then, a natural rule of physics that masses throughout the atmosphere have gravity, and they have pressure above and around them, in the very same way that the lower atmosphere does. The atmosphere has weight, so it presses down globally upon the planet It would be illogical to say that the atmosphere, which is made of “matter”, is being “pressed downwards”, but a bird that is also made of matter, while gliding through that material atmosphere, is said to be “pulled downwards”, (according to Newton’s theory). The bird is supported aloft by aeronautic principles and physical design. All unsupported weight simply falls through atmosphere, in the same way that it falls through space. Gravity is neither “pulling” nor “pushing” downwards. In my theory, it is inert and benign. It is a property of matter. Gravity just falls.We calculate barometric pressure from an overhead column of atmospheric weight, not from a downward pulling force. What we personally weigh is the sum total of all the atomic weights that comprise our individual bodies. There is nothing “pulling us down”. Every atom within our bodies is a “closed vessel”, and they all actually qualify us to be governed by Pascal’s Law. Acceleration related to falling simply has to be from the downward increase in pressure above a falling object.So where does this notion come from, that gravity “pulls us down”? Sir Isaac Newton theorized it late in the 17th century. It was a theory then, and remains widely taught today, even in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary.Early in the 20th century, Einstein predicted we might someday find a “Cosmological Constant” in the universe. He was proven correct when it was discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the leadership of Dr. Ray Carlberg. The phenomenon is actually a “negative pressure” that exists throughout the cosmos, permeating everything; whether matter or vacuum. Some call it “dark energy”. The old gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton then, back in 1687, was postulated without any knowledge of this critically important new factor, establishing the real possibility that the gravity portion of his theory is incorrect. (It now seems fairly obvious that gravity is not a “force” at all.) Benign matter simply “falls”, whether in the atmosphere, or in the vacuum.Equilibrium between pressures: Newton’s 3rd Law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”While he is correct in this law, and has long been proven to be so, gravity seems not a “force” that emanates from mass as Newton theorized elsewhere. Any mass that is balanced under Newton’s 3rd Law has gravity within it, but the positive (atmospheric pressure) force pushes globally inwards on the nucleus, and the negative pressure of the cosmos, as a reverse force, “neutralizes that inward pressure”. The availability of both pressures forms a “force cancellation” which is thereby contained as a “closed vessel”, thus fulfilling both Newton’s 3rd and Pascal’s Law, and "creating" gravity. (In my theory).The word “gravity” (itself), within a material object, should really be a statement that the mass is inert and stable. I believe that all matter in the universe can only be either in equilibrium, (as it is within an atmosphere), or else in some stage of “unbalance”, (as it is within the vacuum of space). Globular masses are “filled” with gravity, and thus are “closed vessels” within the context of Pascal’s Law and Newton’s 3rd Law.We should have a combination of Pascal’s Law, and Newton’s 3rd Law, and the liberty is taken here to combine both laws and express it in this new way:“Pascal-Newton Pressure Law” (PNPL):“A positive atmospheric pressure exerted towards the core of a mass, is cancelled by an equivalent negative pressure exerting back to the positive boundary, creating a closed and pressure-balanced vessel.”====================================================Thirdly, if solids were forced down by air pressure, then an object with greater surface area should fall faster. In fact the opposite is true, an object with a larger surface area actually falls slower through air, because the aerodynamic drag on the object is actually greater. Simply drop a flat sheet of paper, and thendrop the same piece of paper scrunched up into a ball - the ball of paper will fall faster, showing that the air is resisting the fall rather than providing the force for it.
On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.
because gravity is a property of matter in my theory
This is unsubstantiated conjecture
Your ball, my friend…..
I'm 65 now, and most of my accomplishments were in the steel industry. I retired as a Product Metallurgist, so I have a lot of experience in related chemistry and its workings. I worked in hydraulics for twelve years of my working life as well.
That reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction.
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform.
The Supernova Legacy team discovered in 2005, that the entire universe is filled with negative pressure, (N.P.), which works (perhaps), rather like the “operating platform” of a computer. It was a confirmation that Einstein’s theory of a “Cosmological Constant” is a reality. It is what was once called “Dark Energy”, by all who were seeking to find such a thing out there. (Newton knew nothing of N.P. of course, since it was found in 2005.)
This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind.
It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum.
That is to say, that the composition of matter has one set of rules, and “controlled motion”, such as orbiting, is derived from another process that we have not yet come to understand.
An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects.
The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in either (real or man-made) orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down.
If something lands on, or crashes into it, why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.
That (3rd Law) reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform
If something lands on, or crashes into it, (the moon), why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? Gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", (like a body without an atmosphere, or even without a natural orbit), there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.
Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”.
The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing,
It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process
gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all
I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this.
It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.
what has never been explained by any of the experts
I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.
within my theory
That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span.
What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”?
you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level
Another “doctored theory”.
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.”
An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown.
I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something.
Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”.
If you would like to isolate this exchange,
This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - let's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?