The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Is gravitation even real?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
2
3
[
4
]
5
6
...
9
Go Down
Is gravitation even real?
178 Replies
120999 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #60 on:
25/11/2007 20:19:07 »
Hi folks;
BC hasn't responded to my last, but SS said:
"Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behaviour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical."
Hmmmpf. Gravitation “seems” to be comfortable, so that’s the prominent old belief that science has for a working tool right now. It’s just like all the other ancient theories once seemed comfortable until they were ultimately disproved. Just like all the post-Newton things that have been disproved by science, either before or after their individual evaluations, they were not considered “nonsense”. They were based on what seemed to be logical considerations, and if they were logical enough, they might have been published, and someone else took a good look at them, because they were not “nonsense”. They had at least one element of possibility, and without question, a myriad of seemingly logical hypotheses have been buried by their own authors, without even having come to the light of others. Everyone makes mistakes in logic.
“Nonsense”, by definition, is the use of absurd or meaningless words or ideas. I choose to build my (possibly still unconnected) hypotheses on authoritative sources, and I provide those references wherever I can, so that others might consider them as “possible links” in the resolution of things (like “gravitation”), which remains but a theory after more than 300 years. If gravitation is ever completely proven to be an absolute truth, I will joyfully concede that I must have been hunting for a Loch Ness monster in the highlands.
I would be speaking “nonsense” had I set myself up to be an unapproachable “authority” on a subject that still has not been resolved by the best minds in the world. I am obviously not an "authority", and I know of no other human being who is an "absolute" on any subject. While my thoughts do not follow the constant track used by the academically elite, I know that learning is a progressive thing that cannot be turned off once one supposes that they have “mastered” themes that all the past and current genius of science has not yet resolved. Professional careers end only with death, not retirement.
===========================================================================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure.
Extracted from section called “Characteristics”-
Birkeland currents can also interact; parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart.
(Note that the electromagnetic force between the individual particles is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, just like the gravitational force);
parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart.
See also:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html
=====================================================================================
Would someone please explain/justify (at least), the inverse square “coincidence” to me, and to the rest of the curious. We have the math, so we don't need it here. Someone apparently must know, (but have not disclosed), a complete and faultless logical answer to this question.
Thanks.
fleep
Logged
johnbrandy
Jr. Member
43
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #61 on:
26/11/2007 02:38:03 »
Re:fleep. I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online, slightly reworded for this post. "Newton described in his "Opticks", the origin of the inverse square relationship. He examined the elements of circular motion, and applied his analysis to the moon and planets and noted that the radically directed force acting on a planet decreased with the square of its distance from the sun". Therefore, the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics. I am not sure if this is the explanation you are seeking, since it is readily available, if researched. That is the "explanation", in terms of its origin, as well as the fact that this relationship, in the context of gravitational mechanics, can predict, with the knowledge of relevant masses, forces and distance. This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity. Scientific knowledge and understanding are provisional, therefore it is unreasonable to ask for a "complete and faultless" explanation/justification for the inverse square relationship. The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding. You have every right to promulgate and defend your theory/s, and they are much appreciated. But as a scientifically learned individual you must realize they are only theories. Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others. Kahlil Gibran wrote in the "Prophet", "say not that I have found the truth, but rather I have found a truth". In other words, the ultimate truth alludes us. Therefore a degree of humility is necessary if we genuinely desire to learn and grow intellectually(and spiritually). Moreover, the mere fact that other forces exist, does not of necessity, invalidate gravity. If you are suggesting that gravity is more than mass attraction, that seems reasonable. To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play, is consistent with scientific understanding.But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid. Moreover, how reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events. After all, the understanding of gravity is bases upon and derived from certain celestial events. This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much? Thank you for allow me to participate.
«
Last Edit: 26/11/2007 02:51:11 by johnbrandy
»
Logged
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #62 on:
26/11/2007 19:26:04 »
Hi John;
I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online. ... the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics.
I own a full 25 volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica published over the years 1878 and 1885. Newton, (and most British philosopher/mathematicians) are well covered therein, (Vol. XVII, pages 438 – 449), and I know the history. Mid-way down page 441 begins the whole explanation. (De Coulomb gets a small vague, non-explicit column in the "D" book.) I hope you can lay your hands on the whole Newton history and of the inverse square development. Books like mine must still be available over there somewhere. Thanks for including it anyway.
This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity.
Yes, perhaps in some ways it does. I’m trying to find out if the adaptation of the gravity theory-based Inverse Square Law to “point charges” in the vacuum of space (not on Earth), has been closely measured and confirmed to be consistent in enough circumstances to validate it as constantly equivalent in the way it has been applied, where currents and current “sheets and ropes” of innumerable types, shapes, sizes, and functional sources perform. Who knows what hidden understandings remain to be found; possibly even in the nature of “forces” that no one has ever even contemplated? I’m not saying it’s probable, but is it impossible? We don’t know enough yet about the “electrics” of the great vacuum, and realization is often a most painful form of discovery.
The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "
a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged".
That definition appears in none of my prominent dictionaries.
This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding.
There is no bias here. I would have to be mad to genuinely try to sabotage science. It would also be humanly impossible for anyone to execute such a pre-planned agenda on a grand scale. What does that leave for my motive, except a great concern about the status quo? The bias is obviously in the resistance to my suggestions of potential change possibilities.
I openly admit that I do not believe in classical gravitation. I physically can see neither God nor gravitation, but I form and will publically admit and defend, (in the proper forum), my spiritual convictions, based on what I regard to be “evidence”). People happen to believe without adequately explaining the inconsistencies of gravity, which is supposed to be a “constant”. I can’t raise a real belief in it, because it is inconsistent and leaves many of my questions unanswered or with (some) implausible replies. I keep saying I’ll be happy if I’m proven completely wrong. Why am I always asking for answers? I simply am trying to tweak other minds to look in the direction of other possibilities.
Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others.
My hypotheses are simply that, like a (hypothetical) “graviton”. Science pretends sometimes. Am I not allowed to employ (def.) “a supposition made as a basis for reasoning”? When I asked for a “complete and faultless” explanation of a particular gravitational anomaly, I was being unfair, because if gravity is only a theory, their answer can only be theoretical. Now that you make that plain, I am sorry for posing the question that way.
To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play is consistent with scientific understanding.
I keep saying that maybe they are.
But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid?
I keep saying that maybe they are not.
How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?
I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out.
This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much?
Excuse me please. I would have sworn that my continuous claims, that I might be wrong, were screaming out that my opinion is unqualified, primarily because I must always provide authoritative sites and sources that my logic has been built upon. What I largely receive is denigrations that effectually condemn those authoritative sources, and then blame me for trying to “think outside the box”, which is the philosophical target of all modern enterprise. Who is the turtle here?
I have been driven to arrogance at times. I have been demeaning at times. I have been wrong at times. Mea maxima culpa. I will try to be more thoughtful in the manner of my delivery.
Thanks for your comments.
fleep
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #63 on:
26/11/2007 20:51:40 »
I didn't respond because I'm still waiting for you to tell me what moved the balls.
Incidentally, you seem to be looking at ever smaller or shorter-range forces. That's presumably because the obvious ones have already been ruled out (electromagnetism, covalent interactions and such). Now you are looking at the really obscure stuff where the experiments are a bit marginal, even for today's technology.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The force of gravity is quite big enough and obvious enogh to have been measured all those years ago with relatively primitive equipment.
Why try to blame the effect on something that's scarcely measurable with today's technology?
One is simply a lot bigger than the other so they cannot be the same.
But, while I'm waiting
"How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?
I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out. "
Science has been doing, in its way over the course of human history, quite a good job of predicting celestial events.
It's an odd definition of science that includes stonehenge but the predictions work just fine 4000 years on. Since gravity works that well, why should scince waste time looking for non existent forces?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
johnbrandy
Jr. Member
43
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #64 on:
27/11/2007 02:19:12 »
Friend fleep, you indicated that the explanation I offered of the inverse square relation, and the definition of “coincidence”, are not consistent with the information contained in your encyclopedia or dictionaries, respectively.Firstly, "my" explanation of the inverse square relationship is clearly a synopsis, not a complete and detailed account. Such overviews do not discount, or ignore the details that completely explain the process by which the inverse square relationship was derived. Secondly, the mere fact that you could not find an exact definition for "coincidence",consistent with the one I presented, does not mean that the definitions you researched are materially different in their meaning or word sense. It is highly probable that these different definitions are close enough for present purposes. As well, you do not offer a different explanation or definition, which is absolutely necessary if you intend to question or refute the value, or significance of the information I presented.Therein, you are not speaking to the issue.If, as you directly imply, that my explanation and definition are inadequate, please provide details as to their inappropriateness and provide correctives.In other words, please point out specifically where and how "my" explanation and definition fail.In addition, you have not logically demonstrated why the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. It is a contradiction, to agree, as you do, that the inverse square relationship is derived from observation of physical events, and at the same time suggest that the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. Further, I would suggest that the current, online version of the Britannic is more accurate than all, except the most current print version.Thank You for allowing me to participate.
«
Last Edit: 28/11/2007 00:57:40 by johnbrandy
»
Logged
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #65 on:
01/12/2007 14:32:19 »
Hi guys:
(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)
Pascal & Newton’s 3rd
Some might be familiar with Model 1, and if so, can skip past to the Introduction to Model 2. The suggested new Model 2 (below) has been extrapolated/patterned from my (heretofore non-criticized), Model 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Model 1 = Atmosphere of the Earth – Falling from 62 mi. – (A.k.a. – Karman Line).”
Purpose -
to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D., up and down.
I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' at the same pressure for their strata level.
There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels".
(They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32 fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight and pressure above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing (columnar) atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.
The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.
This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.
==========================================================================================================================
==========================================================================================================================
An introduction to Model #2:
There is an interrelationship between Pascal’s (Pressure) Law and Newton’s 3rd (equal and opposite reaction) Law, but the possible presence of “gravity” in matter confuses the issue. There could be valuable new scientific perspectives to be obtained by analysing any questions that will fall into place only after the following model/scenario has been completely considered. This is respectfully offered for the consideration of professional interests, and in no way claims to do anything more than suggest possibilities and raise questions.
Pascal’s Law says that “Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them”.
If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure rating of 14.7 PSI to our sea level, then the opposite reaction should demand that there be an upper/opposite 14.7 PSI limit that contains Pascal’s “closed vessel”, which we call our atmosphere, and yet, pressure diminishes as we rise in altitude. A “closed vessel” must be a complete and definitive container in which pressure is exerted globally and equally at right angles. The problem with declaring the atmosphere and the ocean as “closed vessels” and “equal pressures” is of course, that they are composed of stratifications of pressures, and are influenced by weather and other natural and unnatural means. This makes it necessary to construct a model that precludes all global interference.
======================================================================================================================
Model 2 – The Planet Earth on a still day.
Purpose -
To see the planet, skies, and landmasses as 3 empty, lifeless, weatherless units of consideration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To look at the world’s “single ocean”, the entire atmosphere, and the total landmass as “closed vessels”, we must naturally view them all at rest, so we can make the relationship in that way.
The model demands that the sea is flat, so the currents and wave action is stopped, everywhere on the planet.
There are no winds or other movement in the atmosphere above the waters. This is necessary in the model, in order for us to be able to say that the stratification of both the waters and the gases are contained in “perfectly balanced” vessels.
Both the oceans and atmosphere are normally stratified by temperature, and by weights of content, but.....
The gaseous stratifications and the ocean’s reasons for stratification must now each be independently homogenized to create a “perfect model”. Nothing can be added, nor taken away.
Nothing is living or riding/flying through the homogenized sky, and nothing is living in the homogenized sea or on any landmass. All of the atmosphere and the ocean are independently and "evenly mixed".
The sky temperature is all at a single constant value, and the sea is at its own temperature.
There is no fluid or fractile motion going on anywhere, including within the landmass of the planet.
All is still and constant, in all of the Earth’s closed vessels that come into question here.
All natural environments (including landmasses) must be seen as empty of all living things, and of all unnatural content.
There is no breath, nor other form of wind, and there are no influential pressures at work on either the sea or the sky, from any direction.
All incoming rivers, springs, melts, and land-based watercourses are temporarily halted or do not exist.
All volcanoes, fires, quakes, and other sources of motion or emission are non-existent for the purposes of this model.
Nothing is bleeding off the atmosphere into space and nothing is moving or growing, anywhere on the planet, so the air, the water, and the land are “completely clean” and fixed in place. All is motionless.
What does still exist however, are the referenced 3rd Law of Newton and Pascal`s Pressure Law.
============================================================================================================================
The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:
1) Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2) Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3) Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?
This homogenized model is the only way I know in which the study can be explained and understood.
=====================================================================================================================
Commentary:
If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure to the oceans, then they have declared it to be a "closed vessel".They have also then effectively declared the atmosphere above the ocean to be a “closed vessel”. By extension, science has thus assigned the same characteristic to each and every nucleus that composes those oceans and atmosphere, and therefore by logical extension, to each and every atom in the universe. Ergo, the landmass is also a "closed vessel". Gravity is after all, a “constant”, according to science, so it must work the same everywhere in the universe.
If gravity is a “constant”, then it must be exactly that, if it does exist as a “materially influential force” in the universe. Being a “force”, gravity has a mandatory need under the very definitive rules of science, to be able to transfer that force by a known energy delivery system to perform work at another distant (“X”) location. One fully acknowledged and verified truth about every atom of every element is that its electrons travel freely as required, outside the internally-bound closed vessel that we call the “nucleus”. An electron is thus the only part of any atom that has “freedom” across the entire universe. All nucleii are bound within themselves and may combine with others only with the "permissions" allotted to each element by the known "rules" of covalence.
With the known “binding forces” contained within each single nucleus, every atom’s nucleus is a closed and positive pressure vessel, and with the recent discovery of Negative Pressure in November 2005, we might now suspect that every individual atom, including ions, is in a “balanced” and positive state of pressure. (Negative Pressure, by the way, is a confirmation of Einstein`s Cosmological Constant.) This would put gravity in a singular role as a benign facility that only gives scalability to mass, so gravity could not be an extendable force at all, unless a “graviton” was eventually proven to be a new and separate form of energy, as electricity is.
No graviton has been proven to be anything more than something that can only be sensibly defined as a supposition that arises from a scientific need for an explanation of how a “force” can do “work” at a distance, without having to employ a conveyor of some sort of energy. In light of this absence of transfer energy, absolutely nothing is left to explain the movement of the lead balls in Cavendish’s experiment, or in the like result of any of his “copiers”. This appears to be an undeniable fact that can only be refuted by a proven scientific explanation of, “What moved the lead balls in the Cavendish experiment?” I have no such answer, and a graviton may be inadequately equipped to be that answer. The following point might best explain my reason why:
If a graviton is found to be a genuine energy form, heretofore undiscovered, then it seems logical that it is subject to the verified laws of physics, and must also convey an equal and opposite reaction. This would seem to contest its theorized role as a (singly) attractive force.
Pertinent comments welcome.
Thanks
fleep
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #66 on:
02/12/2007 13:15:52 »
Does this "(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)" mean that you can't answer a simple question?
"What moved the balls?" is a real fundamental question for any plausible theory aboout gravity; it's not rhetorical.
Oh, btw we dismissed this idea "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. " earlier because without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways.
Since I already pointed that out in an earlier post I wonder why you are rehashing it. Did you forget that it was rubish?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #67 on:
02/12/2007 15:35:37 »
Hi BC;
I said "
pertinent
comments are welcome". You're blaming me for re-hashing, and you just keep on demanding an answer to a question for which even science has no non-hypothetical answer. Now
that
is illogical.
Sure. The question about the balls is a real fundamental question, but like I said before, nobody actually knows that answer, including you, and I will not even try to answer that one again, because the "transfer energy" that caused an apparent effect of "attraction", has simply never been identified, except by a hypothethetical means.
You say that; "without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways."
Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down? That's all wet. All the atomic "weights" in any matter comprise the total "burden" of what it is. "Gravity", which is by every scientific admission, a very weak force, has nothing to do with the natural atmospheric behaviour of a falling burden.
Consider this: A falling object is extremely magnetic, but it gets torn away from a plane by the jet's velocity. It had been magnetically attached to another highly magnetic place on the plane. Now, if the Earth's weak force of gravity is allegedly concentrating such a weak force from 50,000 feet down, and the extremely magnetic and attractive spot on the plane does not override the weak force below, and make the falling magnet try to return to the plane, why do you insist that a weak force has any role in this at all? Stuff just falls downwards through the atmosphere, because that is just the nature of the atmosphere and falling objects. Nothing that has enough total "load of atoms" to overcome a cross-wind (or any other influence, like a lightning bolt, for example), has ever and will never, fall any way but straight down.
You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?
The combined atomic "burdens"; i.e. - all the atoms of the object are all that are falling, and the atmosphere does not "know" a plummeting magnet from a falling apple. The atmosphere didn't "know" anything in Newton's day, and it still does not, some 300 years later.
Now. How about the questions asked in my Model 2? They are these, (and please consider Model 2 again before you answer them.)
The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:
1) Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2) Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3) Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?
Thanks.
fleep
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #68 on:
02/12/2007 18:10:34 »
Science has a perfectly good answer to the question. The answer is gravity.
If you wish to dispute the reallity of gravity you need to come up with an equally plausible explanation. It's perfectly logical for me to ask you what it is.
"Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down?"
Since you said
"This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. "
Otherwise how could it know which way to fall? Of course, universal gravitation answers this perfectly.
Pointing out this failure on your part to provide a reasonable alternative to the well established fact of gravity or pointing out that three's a problem with your idea about things naturally falling down without having something to define which way is "down" is perfectly pertinant to the matter in hand.
"You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?"
Yes and no. I'm pointing out that, without gravity to tell them which way to fall things might fall sideways. This is absurd. It is also a drict consequence of the non existance of gravity that you are putting forward.
I'm glad that you recognise it is daft; why don't you recognise it as a feature of a universe without gravity?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #69 on:
02/12/2007 21:37:47 »
Hi;
Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky
theory
called "universal gravitation", but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?
Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space. My model 1 (inside an atmosphere) explains how stuff falls to Earth from the Karman Line. Outside an atmosphere, the only stuff an object falling (in any direction) hits out in the vacuum is anything directly in its dierect path, and there isn't anything (except maybe antimatter,) attracting it to what it hits out in space, any more than there is inside an atmosphere. Falling in atmosphere = downward. Falling in the vacuum of space = any direction. "Gravitation" offers no behaviour of any kind that could be called a "constant".
Whatever do you mean about my "failure to provide a reasonable alternative"? It's electricity, of course. I have pointed out many times that we live in an electric universe, and about all the live currents in space, and the magnetospheres, and the Van Allen belts, and the neutrinos, and the plasmas, and the tightly-bound electrical properties of atomic nuclei, and the universal freedom of electrons, and the anomalies like Janus and Epimetheus that defy "gravitation", and on and on. The cosmos is filled with electrically generated signals and waves. Einstein even had to come up with "relativity" it to get around the "problems" that gravity left unexplained.
Somehow, you hold onto an old theory that can't even account for an energy transfer method of its own, which science says every "force"
must have
to deliver the "work" of that force to its work destination. (No energy delivered = no work performed.)
I haven't actually stipulated the falling of things (exclusively)as a
feature
of a "universe without gravity", because I clearly have separated the behavioural difference between things falling through the vacuum, and things falling through an atmosphere to define only those behaviours individually. When a logical approach is taken, then anyone can consider that there is a difference between those two behaviours, and therefore, gravitation can not be a universal "constant" at all. A "universe without gravity", as
you
call it, is suddenly a very clear picture.
As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?
Now. How about addressing the 3 questions I asked, based on my Model 2?
Again, these are:
(I said:) "The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:"
1) Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2) Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3) Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?
Address those, and we can get down to work.
Thanks.
fleep
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #70 on:
03/12/2007 20:55:45 »
"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation""
OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means- it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples.
Yes, gravity is a theory because it is all of those things.
As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.
"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"
That simply isn't true.
The only thing gravity requires matter to do is atract other matter; it does. The presence or absense of air makes no diference to that attraction.
The fact that, for example, a fallig feather is slowwed down by the air doesn't in any sense mean that the feather isn't atracted to the earth- it just means the air gets in the way. What else could it do?
"Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space."
Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.
It's also an observed fact that from any point of view, any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls- it follows exactly the path gravity predicts rather than your ammusing idea that it can go any way it likes. (The moon is a well documented example of such a body- it's path has been "documented" for about 4000 years)
Since these daft ideas have already been shown not to agree with reallity and, as I have said before, if your ideas don't tally with the facts then it isn't the facts that need changing, why are you repeating them?
Are you really just trying to waste time or are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?
BTW, "As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?"
Very funny but you missed the point; be it gravitons, lepricons or morons, something moves the balls.
You can call it what you like but, since the balls move, something must have moved them. Any theory that discounts that is at odds with the facts and, therefore, is wrong.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #71 on:
04/12/2007 17:22:18 »
Hi BC;
"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation".
OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means - it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples. (The underlined is untrue, or we wouldn’t have Einstein’s theory of Relativity.)
No, it doesn’t actually mean any of what you said at all. Oxford Dictionary says –“Theory” (n) -a view held: supposition explaining something ; the sphere of speculation as distinguished from that of practice."
“A model of reality” is only the preparation of a display that will possibly (and supposedly) better illustrate a hypothetical extension of a supposition. My Model 2 (which you continue to dodge) is an example of such a thing.
As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.
I don’t agree. The virtual environment of computers is exponentially advancing our knowledge in just about everything else, but I contend that as long as the efforts persevere in trying to prove a gravity-based something, those virtual models will be designed around and from the viewpoint of a mere assumption that a mere theoretical beginning point for the search is a valid course. Ergo – Gravity is assumed to be real, (and it might be, but is not adequately proven against electrical reasons); so the virtual models repeatedly get based on gravity, an unproven assumption. Where else could they arrive?
How about someone courageously making a virtual model (using space-based "electrics")that is purposefully designed to prove that gravity does
not
exist? Who wants to find that out? Apparently no one does, and that might only be on account of the fact that we are comfortable in our close-mindedness about the (illogical) possibility that any other possibility (but gravity) could be real.
"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"
That simply isn't true.
Oh, but it is. I repeat:" stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum
of space
."
Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.
Of course they do. You conveniently ignored that I said in the same message that I was talking about the
vacuum of space
, and not just any vacuum, such as one that we create on Earth. It is known that stuff falls straight down anywhere on the Earth, or in any other genuine atmosphere. I can’t possibly ever know it, but if we had a vacuum tube that was sealed at ground level extending all the way up into the vacuum of space, perhaps the perfect vacuum would make a small magnetic material object dropped in the center of the tube, move over and ride downwards against the wall of the tube. I rather believe that it would be coerced to the wall by the magnetic pole’s attraction, as is a compass needle. We would never see this if the test was done in a short vacuum column at ground level. Gravity does not move compass needles.
“ any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls - it follows exactly the path gravity predicts ... The moon is a well documented example of such a body...”
Gravity does not predict anything. The old math was created for the purpose of trying to explain the natural event. Math is rather like law. Experts can write math equations that seem to be unexplainably true, but they have no practical use in most cases. Gravity equations were designed merely to answer a supposition that could not be contested against anything else back then, because the electrical facilities in space could not be examined way back then as other options. Build a case, fool a jury, and set a “precedent”. It’s rather like our inability to quash foolishly high settlements in legal cases where someone has won millions because of an injustice blindly buried inside a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Things like that happen when some believe that “frenzy needs a quick and convenient answer”.
Does it not seem strange to you that some moons and planets follow elliptical orbits, even while some of them are maintaining a particularly “controlled “ axial method of making the seasons reoccur at the same times of their full cycle around their parent body? If gravitation was constant, could only some orbits be elliptical? Even in the unlikely possibility that they are caught in a “gravitational grip” that is allegedly “constant”, would all the magnetic poles and places like the moon’s magnetic “areas” not (possibly) throw the “constant grip” into a chaotic rotation? What would permit the ellipses to maintain their stability? What are Van Allen Belts, ring currents, magnetospheres and electromagnetism doing in all their many cases? Why are you ignoring this whole area of study?
are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?
(Was that ever done by a logical questioning of individual recognition that other possibilities can and might exist, or out of a national patriotism to the “British genius” of Newton?) We Canadians are part of the commonwealth too, but I wouldn’t care if Newton’s theory was written by my own father before he died. If I thought he was wrong, I would say so.
Any theory that discounts that, is at odds with
(either you, or)
the facts and, therefore, is wrong.
That statement too, is your own theory, which puts it on a par with mine, which is basically a simple (but intensely questioned) suggestion that something else could be truer than the status quo.
Now. How about the questions posed by Model 2?
Thanks.
fleep
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #72 on:
05/12/2007 10:54:25 »
The theory of universal gravitation has produced precise results on the motion of planetary bodies and is totally satisfactory for everyone in the universe except fleep. I am not proposing to enter into fatuous arguments about this.
The only point that could be argued is the precise origin of this extremely accurate and consistent law. Relativity explains it in terms of space curvature which looks very satisfactory.
Numerous others have tried to produce some sort of residual electromagnetic effect like the Van Der walls forces that hold most atoms together but none have been successful. Any such theory must include the same effects as relativity which has been adequately proved.
«
Last Edit: 05/12/2007 15:03:33 by Soul Surfer
»
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #73 on:
05/12/2007 11:05:03 »
As has been pointed out before, theory in a scientific sense does mean that.
From Wiki.
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."
And once again you are granting magic powers to lumps of rock; how else can they tell if they are in a vacuum tube or in the vacuum of space?
The real problem here Fleep is that you don't seem to understand that it takes more than imagination to come up with a useful hypothesis in science.
Imagination alone can produce made up worlds with interesting properties. This isn't always a bad thing; Terry Pratchet has made a lot of money from it.
The problem is when you try to tell use we are living on the diskworld.
We can look at the world and see that your ideas simply don't work.
No ammount of rambling red text will make it right.
To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #74 on:
09/12/2007 18:51:48 »
Hi;
Okay. I can't even sell ice cubes to those who are dying of the heat, but I can do the logic of why they should think about buying something from me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isotropy is
the
unchanging
property of being independent of direction.
Radiation,
as used in physics,
is energy
in the form of waves or moving subatomic particles.
E.g. - Isotropic radiation has the same
unchanging
intensity regardless of direction of measurement. An isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how a test particle is oriented.
“Isotropic” means a “constant” - (e.g. – such as a constant transfer of force, and thus is universal in its range).
A constant
is something, generally a number, that
does not change
.
(Space is also isotropic, i.e.- (a universal constant).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravity is said to be
non-isotropic
, (yet "constant") so
it
can
change
in form and intensity
and/or vary in any direction
.
Because gravity is also "constant in time"
, it is therefore also said to be
universal
.
So,
radiation is
a constant
isotropic
form of
energy
that never changes
, anywhere in the universe.
Gravity
, on the other hand,
is a non-isotropic “
force
"
, and it is
always able to change
, anywhere in the universe.
By definition – “
Force is an influence
” that is said
to “cause mass to accelerate, such as gravity, friction, or a push.”
(But it is
not
the energy that performs the work, and
so a force is a stationary influence.
)
================================================================================================================
Despite gravity’s contradiction of what a “constant” means, and that a “force” is not and can never be “energy” itself, science insists that gravity is a “universal constant”.
Science is effectively telling us that gravity pulls our tides, even though it cannot, by science’s own definitive explanation of its terms for “force, isotropy, constant, energy, and universal”.
Radiation is energy
that moves.
Gravity is a "force"
which cannot move, so is gravity isotropic or non-isotropic?
Is gravity universal or is it not? Is gravity a force, or is it energy? Is gravity a constant, or is it not? Is gravity anything at all, or is it not?
==============================================================================================================================
Now I must ask you:
Exactly which definition of anything are we supposed to believe?
Thanks
fleep
Logged
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #75 on:
09/12/2007 20:39:36 »
The constant, comonly denoted by the letter G, is about 6 X 10^-11
That's a number (It has units too but I can't be bothered remembering them). It wil be the same number tomorrow and, by all apearances it's the same number everywhere in the universe.
Why do you not understand that it's a constant?
To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #76 on:
09/12/2007 22:09:53 »
Hi BC;
What did I say it was? I said it's "generally a number". That doesn't make science's defintions jive, and I still say that Coulomb's Law is what Newton gets credit for, and it matches Newton's 3rd Law. Electricity is an energy form, that I believe obviously runs the universe, unlike gravity which remains an inconsitent "force" theory.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.
Coulomb's Law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
I'm all done here, I guess.
fleep
Logged
Soul Surfer
Naked Science Forum King!
3389
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 8 times
keep banging the rocks together
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #77 on:
10/12/2007 09:30:42 »
That last post about isotropy was total rubbish and shows clearly that you do not understand the meaning of the word Fleep
A light source may emit radiation evenly in all directions ie isotropically ( but most dont) but if you look away from the light source it is still dark and the radiation pressure still pushes you away from the source.
The only radiation that we see that appears to be almost (but not quite ) isotropic is the cosmic microwave background.
Logged
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
30350
Activity:
12.5%
Thanked: 1217 times
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #78 on:
10/12/2007 17:47:55 »
You said it didn't exist, but it makes perfectly good sense if you understand the physics.
Coulomb obviously got credit for Coulomb's law; same with Newton.
Electricity can only run the local bit's of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.
Gravity follows an equation of the same form as electrostatic attraction.
None of this is new.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
fleep
(OP)
Full Member
65
Activity:
0%
Is gravitation even real?
«
Reply #79 on:
11/12/2007 17:21:41 »
BC said: “Electricity can only run the local bits of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.”
(No. Electricity is an energy form, not a “force”.)
Now you’ve done it. A “short range force” is all wrong, and you know it, so I now am forced to present more from legitimate sites, only this time, you will have to find out where I got it by going searching.
You guys just keep making off-the-cuff remarks about my clearly researched references and call them “nonsense”, “rubbish” and trash”. You keep telling me that my hypothetical suppositions are “garbage”, yet never elaborately explain why my references from Wikipedia and other places are “garbage”, if built into a pointed thought that is presented merely for the possibility of stimulating the minds of those who actually believe in other reasonable possibilities.
I was going to let this rest, but since you keep hoping that your insults will convince any real thinkers out there that I’m mad, I’m going to persevere a bit. You “regular sceptics” can drop out if you like. So what If I get no other comments? I’m not getting any appreciation for my efforts now. What would be different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In physics, a
black body
is an object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. No radiation passes through it and none is reflected. It is this lack of both transmission and reflection to which the name refers.
These properties make black bodies ideal sources of
thermal radiation
.
That is,
the amount and
spectrum
of electromagnetic radiation they emit is directly related to their temperature.
The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation.
The "electromagnetic spectrum" of an object is the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation from that object.
The electromagnetic spectrum extends from just below the frequencies used for modern radio (at the long-wavelength end) to gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometres down to fractions of the size of an atom. In our universe the short wavelength limit is likely to be the Planck length, and
the long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself
(see physical cosmology), though
in principle the spectrum is infinite
.
Black bodies below around 700 K (430 °C/806 ⁰F) produce very little radiation at visible wavelengths and appear black. Black bodies above this temperature produce “black-body radiation at visible wavelengths starting at red, going through orange, yellow, and white before ending up at blue as the temperature increases. (
As the temperature decreases
, the peak of the radiation curve moves to lower intensities and longer wavelengths. The light emitted by a black body is called “black-body radiation” and has a special place in the history of quantum mechanics.
Growth of the Earth’s inner core is thought to play an important role in the generation of Earth's magnetic field
by dynamo action in the liquid outer core.
A thermodynamic system is said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal, mechanical, and chemical equilibrium, as determined by the values of its pressure, temperature, etc. Specifically, equilibrium here is characterized by the minimum of a thermodynamic potential, such as the Helmholtz free energy, i.e. systems at constant temperature and volume: A = U – TS
Or as the Gibbs free energy, i.e. systems at constant pressure and temperature: G = H – TS
The process that leads to a thermodynamic equilibrium is called
thermalization
. An example of this is a system of interacting particles that is left undisturbed by outside influences. (e.g. – Our core and mantle, then waters and atmosphere). By interacting, they will share energy/momentum among themselves and reach a state where the global statistics are unchanging in time.
Thermal equilibrium is achieved when two systems in thermal contact with each other cease to exchange energy by heat. (e.g. – at the surface of our atmosphere). If two systems are in thermal equilibrium their temperatures are the same. (e.g. – the Earth atmosphere surface temperature might be at the same (final) temperature that (actually) arrived there from the sun.)
Thermodynamics deals with equilibrium states. In an equilibrium state, there are no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces) with the system. A system that is in equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.
Sir William Gilbert was the first to define the North Magnetic Pole as the point where the Earth's magnetic field points vertically downwards. His is the definition used today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sun
is a magnetically active star. It supports a strong, changing magnetic field that varies year-to-year. The Sun's magnetic field gives rise to many effects
including variations in solar wind that carry material through the Solar System.
Effects of solar activity on Earth include auroras at moderate to high latitudes, and the disruption of radio communications and electric power.
It also changes the structure of Earth's outer atmosphere.
If we, (the web reference source’s assumption), assume the following, we can then derive a formulaic relationship between the surface temperature of the two bodies.
1) The Sun and the Earth radiate as spherical black bodies in thermal equilibrium with themselves.
2) The Earth absorbs all the solar energy that it intercepts from the Sun.
A point charge
is an idealized model of a particle which has an electric charge at a mathematical point with no dimensions. (e.g. - the point charge location on or near the Earth, and the point charge location on or near the sun.)
The fundamental equation of electrostatics is
Coulomb's law
, which describes the electric force between two point charges.
The electric field associated with a classical point charge increases to infinity as the distance from the point charge decreases towards zero making energy (thus mass) of point charge infinite.
In quantum electrodynamics,
the mathematical method of renormalization eliminates the infinite divergence of the point charge.
Anisotropy
is
the property of being directionally dependent
, as opposed to isotropy, which means homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference in a physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for some material when measured along different axes. An example is the light coming through a polarising lens.
Polarization
is a property of electromagnetic waves, such as light, (including the Aurora Borealis), that describes the direction of the electric field.
More generally, the polarization of a transverse wave describes the direction of oscillation in the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel.
The direction of the (electric field) oscillation in electromagnetic waves is not uniquely determined by the direction of propagation. The term polarization is used to distinguish between the different directions of oscillation of electromagnetic waves propagating in the same direction.
Although it was first mentioned by Ancient Greek Pytheas, Hiorter and Celsius first described in 1741
evidence for magnetic control, namely, large magnetic fluctuations occurred whenever the aurora was observed overhead. This indicates (and it was later realized) that large electric currents were associated with the aurora, flowing in the region where auroral light originated.
Kristian Birkeland deduced that the currents flowed in the east-west directions along the auroral arc, and
such currents, flowing from the dayside towards (approximately) midnight were later named "auroral electrojets" (see also Birkeland currents).
Still more evidence for a magnetic connection
are the statistics of auroral observations. Elias Loomis (1860) and later in more detail Hermann Fritz (1881)established that the aurora appeared mainly in the "auroral zone", a ring-shaped region with a radius of approximately 2500 km around the magnetic pole of the earth, not its geographic one. It was hardly ever seen near that pole itself. The instantaneous distribution of auroras ("auroral oval", Yasha [or Yakov] Felds[h]tein 1963) is slightly different, centered about 3-5 degrees nightward of the magnetic pole, so that auroral arcs reach furthest towards the equator around midnight. The aurora can be seen best at this time.
Auroras
are produced by the collision of charged particles, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles,
from the magnetosphere,
with atoms and molecules of the Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km). The particles have energies from 1 - 100 keV.
Most originate from the sun and arrive at the vicinity of earth in the
relatively low energy
solar wind.
When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with that of the earth and solar particles then enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards earth.
The collisions in the atmosphere electronically excite atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere. The excitation energy can be lost by light emission or collisions. Most aurorae are green and red emission from atomic oxygen. Molecular nitrogen and nitrogen ions produce some low level red and very high blue/violet aurorae.
Each (aurora) curtain consists of many parallel rays, each lined up with the local direction of the magnetic field lines, suggesting that aurora is shaped by the earth's magnetic field. Indeed, satellites show electrons to be guided by magnetic field lines, spiraling around them while moving earthwards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
It would appear to be fairly obvious that if the magnetic influence of the sun reaches our planet from 93 million miles away, it is here to perform something more than a night time light show. It would also seem obvious that the existence and planet-surrounding shape of magnetospheres around some of the significant bodies (as in my message 139967) are doing something big, other than just creating entertainment. Maybe I’ve been trying to reason the moon’s effect into the tides like everybody else, while it’s all happening from the sun’s obviously serious levels of thermodynamic control.
We’re talking about something that keeps our whole galaxy alive here. The moon, and everything else in our galaxy might (or must) all be pawns of our sun, and I just can’t see anything making more sense than that.
Ya, ya, I know. All of this is garbage too, including my few little suppositions injected here and there, because I don’t have the actual answer, but neither does anybody else, because most seem happy with the placebo, instead of a genuine cure.
Thanks anyway, if you bothered to read this far.
fleep
Logged
Print
Pages:
1
2
3
[
4
]
5
6
...
9
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...