The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 85889 times)

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #100 on: 05/01/2008 01:32:16 »
Well SS,

at the risk of allowing myself to deteriorate into an unfriendly insult contest, might I point out that you have taken the liberty to transform the relevance of my comments regarding a flame in open space versus one in Earth's atmosphere, into a flame transformation that takes place entirely within the earth's atmosphere, and thus is a non-comparator. Your case most likely should be attributed to the changes occurring under a situation where altitude and pressure changes are most certainly responsible for the departure from the normality of a pressure-sensitive activity (like the shape of a flame). You cannot fool atmospheric pressure, and your flame proves it.

The (appropriately-named) "Zero Gravity parabola" is an engineered trick that alters not only the physical dynamics expected of a constant flight performance, and also the senses, but obviously the "common senses", of which we all occassionaly appear to have few.

Thanks anyway.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #101 on: 05/01/2008 13:45:25 »
Fleep, did you think about this at all when you wrote it? "Why do I have to be the one to explain that “up” or “down” need no explaining, particularly in the context of trying to defend a (gravity) theory that I think might be wrong?

Up is a direction, and down is a direction. They constitute a (parallax) way of viewing a vertical “plane”. A plane (by definition) is supposed to be level, but what is level if you are lying on your back and looking at the sky as if you were standing?

Did you not think that "up" from my point of view is at roughly 180 degrees to "up" from the point of view of someone in Australia.

Since "Up" and "Down" are not fixed directions you need something to say which way is up.
That something is gravity.
Please try to think about what you post from a few other people's point of view. It will stop you making silly errors like that.

As for "OK. You are Newton. It is the early 1680’s. You want the word “down” to have a significant meaning on the Earth, because a reverence has been attached to it by your theoretical gravity observation. You are primitively aware, (even though your understanding and assumptions are quite significant and reasonable for their time, ) that things act differently when they fall to the earth from inside our atmosphere, than when they fall through space, We have since learned much about what “falling” means, whether through an atmosphere, or through a vacuum, and that they both fall in a single direction, unless they are influenced in one of the ways described by Newton’s Laws of Motion."
 Well, lets have a good look at that.

"OK. You are Newton. It is the early 1680’s. You want the word “down” to have a significant meaning on the Earth, because a reverence has been attached to it by your theoretical gravity observation."
Clearly Bollocks. The word had a perfectly well defined meaning before Newton looked at the issue; it meant towards the ground.

Newton's beliefs were quite complex but there's no doubt he had a reverance for God rather than his own opinion.

The phrase "theoretical gravity observation" Is a contradiction in terms It's theory or an observation; not both.

In Newton's day the notion of a vacuum was still a bit iffy.Torricelli's work was still quite new. So to say
"You are primitively aware, (even though your understanding and assumptions are quite significant and reasonable for their time, ) that things act differently when they fall to the earth from inside our atmosphere, than when they fall through space,"
Is rather suspect, however what Newton did was assume that the laws of nature were the same in the sky as they were here on earth and work out what orbits the plannets would follow.
The predicted paths proved to be (almost) exactly the same as the observed ones.
In short, He knew that objects falling in space followed the same rules as objects here on earth.
That's exactly why he proposed that the law was universal, and it's the opposite of what you keep saying.

Flames have been studied at various pressures; they only behave like the one shown if they are in zero gravity.
Also, since this "As for your last question; don’t look to me to tell you what keeps the Earth in orbit when science itself is not sure enough of its own library of studies of gravity to declare it no longer a theory." doesn't make sense, it doesn't answer the question.
(science is perfectly clear on the matter- gravity exists and does things like drive the tides and keeps the earth in orbit there are, or may be, other effects like dark matter but the effects are tiny. Dark matter is only affected by gravity so I'm suprised that someone who doesn't believe in it keeps talking about it)
Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #102 on: 16/02/2008 02:33:10 »
Hi;

I had to take some time off to re-assess all the damage that some "contributors'" impossible harassment does to my thinking process. Purposeful distraction is more offensive than it is useful. I came to this forum seeking positive discussion with thinking individuals. Sometimes, I run face-first into unproductive denials that there can sometimes be some genuinely meaningful questions in other people's minds, and as much as I like to think that I'm opening new doors to logical discussion, I sometimes find that what is behind those doors is what should never be allowed outside.

Sure. Sometimes I pose questions to which others know the answer, and I do not. I have occassionaly stuck my neck out to forcefully extract a genuine explanation of why I was wrong about something. I don't need insults and lack of human assistance to make this forum go somewhere. I'm trying to participate in a gentlemanly fashion. Gimme a break sometimes. Make sure you understand what sometimes complicated viewpoints are saying, or sometimes simply implying, before you apply labels to the opposition. If I said them poorly, ask me if I meant it the way you read it. Courteous debate also should include consideration for the possibility that humans are not perfect in any way.

If anybody wants to get back to the basic theme of this theory, I'm trying again to remind you that where I'm heading is an effort to prove that there is another influential road to explain many of the things that "gravitation" does not.

Are you ready to discuss things intelligently, or do you just want to fire off shots of ignorance from the hip?
=================================================================================================================

Newton’s 3rd Law Ends at the Wall

Ever since Negative Pressure was confirmed as a discovery in 2005, we all appear to have forgotten the fact that it has always been out there. Dark Energy was there when Newton wrote his 3 laws of Motion, over 300 years ago, and curiously, we still have never chased off into the unknown to find out what happened in the cases of some of the largest physical reactions in history.
 
For example:

What happened to the "equal and opposite reaction" when Krakatau and all the other great volcanoes of history erupted? Where did Newton’s 3rd Law manifest the excesses of the instant firestorm when Hiroshima was decimated?

The fact is, that the 3 laws of Motion were written in a “global realm” that had no understanding of the possibility that a thing such as “Negative Pressure” could ever exist. There was no reason to contemplate such a thing, so nobody thought about it, but from the new scientific explanations and definitions of Dark Energy and Negative Pressure that are appearing “on line”, it seems like we might still be missing the boat. The “realm of negativity” is not just a global feature of our planet. It is a universal “constant”, and Einstein gave it to us almost a hundred years ago. He called it, “The Cosmological Constant”.

 We now have to figure out how to unite this negativity with the laws and terms of positivity.

Once, we only had to worry about defining the tools and properties of positivity, but now that we know that Dark Energy, (which is Negative Pressure), really does exist across the universe, we really should be checking the library, to see which parts of, and how many beautiful old leather bound volumes have now officially become antiques.

If the mandatory transfer of positive energy (under the 3rd Law) is now known to cross over into the realm of an energy system that “handles” the reaction in a negative fashion, then we ought to be rethinking a few things. The following is authoritative source information from the internet. (The comments in parentheses are mine.)

“The transfer of energy between the "system" and adjacent regions is “work”. (This statement speaks of “positivity”).

“Dark Energy is universal, making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills all otherwise empty space in the universe.” (So, 70% of all universal energy is available negative energy, everywhere.)

“That is, any volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy.” (This speaks of negative energy.)

“Strangely, dark energy causes (universal) expansion because it has strong negative pressure.” (A “cause” means that “work” is being done by negative pressure).

What all of this appears to mean, is that the universe is expanding, but since dark energy is only a “space” that is uniformly filled with a constantly-standing negative pressure”, then negativity cannot be a scalar (physical quantity); although positive physical energy is a scalar (physical quantity).
=================================================================================================================


So here are my questions, (which are basically one question):

1)   The equal and opposite reaction that is mandatory under the 3rd Law appears to need an “area of displacement” where any excess “work” can dissipate, as may be required in some circumstances. But, how can any huge positive action fulfill the 3rd Law, if positive action is a scalar occurrence, that rushes into (non-scalar) dark energy “spaces”?

Is it possible that if the action is so big that it cannot be equal, maybe it could at least be opposite, and being in negativity, any “balance” of a 3rd Law reaction could dissipate, or, maybe even become unnecessary?  Does that not seem plausible?

2)   If dark energy is just sitting there, everywhere around the universe, is it, (being negative pressure), then most likely available to all cosmological functions only for the purpose of being able to permit any and all physical reactions to be “absorbed” when they occur, even if they are too big or too fast to “finish”?

To clarify the question, with an analogy; If you are squeezing a sponge in your fist, while holding your hand under the water, and you immediately release your tight grip and then pull the sponge out into the air, did you notice that the sponge once again has plenty of water inside it? That water rushed into the empty (negative) “spaces” when you let the positive pressure off under the water, of course. (Do you see the analogy?)

Might I respectfully ask for a serious consideration of these questions please? (I will then take it further from there.)

Thank you.

fleep
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #103 on: 17/02/2008 11:30:41 »
I see no problems with Newton's third law in the examples you have noted.

It is interesting to note that in certain specific types of supernova explosions the explosion is asymmetrical and the residual compact object is ejected from the area of the explosion at high speed an example of the third law operating in very extreme conditions

Your questions are still not clearly enough defined to give an answer and I do not understand your sponge analogy.

 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #104 on: 17/02/2008 23:04:08 »
Hi SS;

Thanks for your comments.

I see no problems with Newton's third law in the examples you have noted.

It is interesting to note that in certain specific types of supernova explosions the explosion is asymmetrical and the residual compact object is ejected from the area of the explosion at high speed an example of the third law operating in very extreme conditions

Your questions are still not clearly enough defined to give an answer.

Good. Thank you. Forget the analogy.

As I see this, an orbiting body works like an object floating smoothly and evenly down a circular (or oval) river, and most orbits never change, because; “An object in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by a net force”. (Janus and Epimetheus, two outer moons of Saturn, are a good example of two orbits that do change, every time they encounter each other. Wiki says that they are the only known incidence of this orbit-switching behaviour.) The relevance follows.

If we take a hard look at something local, we have our lunar tides to consider. (We are seeking to identify the 3rd Law balancing of two types of pressures here: Positive and Negative.) The pressures either must balance, or else a portion of one pressure or the other must be “forgiven” its mandatory requirement to match the other, as required by the 3rd Law, but, only Positivity is “unforgivable”. “Negativity” is a universal Constant, so it cannot be anything but what it is, and must always remain.It cannot be the pressure that needs "forgiving".

The Earth, in comparison to the moon, has a positivity value of “6”, and the moon has a positivity value of “1”. In a continuous 3rd Law “action”, the Earth’s positive pressure reaches six sevenths of the way to the moon, and the moon’s positive pressure reaches out the other one seventh of the total distance back towards the Earth. At this point in space, the pressures meet, and the opposite reaction becomes mandatory.

Because the Earth is a much larger mass, and the moon has no atmosphere for the Earth's pressure to depress, the moon’s pressure cannot push the Earth itself, so it depresses our atmosphere by 16%, which pushes down the ocean surface by that amount. (The moon is a direct hard-pusher, since its surface itself, (without an atmosphere), is doing the pushing, and the Earth is a soft-pusher, because its soft atmosphere is receiving the moon's hard push.)

Orbits are stable and inflexible, but atmospheres and Negative Pressure are not.
 
So, the Earth’s atmosphere must “bend” below the passing moon’s proportionally “equal” and opposite force. This is to say that the pressure “reach” of the Earth’s mass into space exceeds the moon’s ability to match our pressure on a 1 to 1 basis. Something has to give.

The moon, also being in a “rigid” orbit, wins the pressure-fight, and Negative Pressure/ Dark Energy, has to make the concession, and take over the excess “work”. It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead. The moon does not “pull” the tides. The atmospheric depression caused by the moon’s proportionally greater positive pressure, (and the universally huge supply of negative pressure), actually pushes our tides as the moon progresses.

Newton’s 3rd law was right, but he obviously could not see the paradox that it created for his “gravitation theory”. The Inverse Square Law and the principle of its primary equation still both work, when looking at it this way.

The way I see it, a "harder pressure surface", (i.e. -a surface with the least amount of atmospheric "cushion" to absorb an opposing harder pressure), will always be the "winner" in a pressure "contest". The 3rd Law will be exhausted at the "losing end" of the reaction. If any pressure "overflow" remains unsatisfied by the needs of the 3rd Law, the negative pressure will "absorb it'.

What do you think?

fleep
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #105 on: 18/02/2008 08:38:14 »
The idea is completely bonkers.

Firstly.  Objects do NOT go in a circular path unless they are acted on by a contiuous force  they only go in straight lines.

The rest of the stuff is just gibberish

In an orbit the attractive force of gravitation is balanced by force that is needed to make the object follow the elliptical orbital path.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #106 on: 18/02/2008 20:31:21 »
Fleep,
Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool.

 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #107 on: 19/02/2008 15:35:10 »
Replying to last 2 messgs - from BC & SS

It never ceases to amaze me that you two 320 year old guys just fail to be able to understand, that when you keep trying to "correct" me when my theories bypass or even defy Newton, it is about stuff that I do understand as well as I must, and have considered in the preparation of my messgs.

If I suggest something that defies Newton in any way, as a possibility, or as a condition that would apply if my theory is even "close" to being right, you declare me a fool, or "barking mad", or some other complimentary thing.

These accusations usually do not come, after your specific reason(s) why my thinking, within my theory,, (i.e. - outside the "box" of convention), is not possible. You often just hang me, without providing your own logical view as evidence that what my evidence said, was wrong. If this happened in court, your evidence from the unproven portions of Newton's writings would likely be declared "hearsay", because it too is still a THEORY. (e.g. - "hearsay", as in theoretical particle, "graviton").

If Newton was in the court, you can be sure that he would be on top of the latest discovery news, and he'd do a better job of getting modern technology updated, (if it should be), than trying to defend his own old theories. You guys do Newton an injustice.

There will be a surprise coming down the pike very soon. Go to
 http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6563

Read the whole thing. Then read up on anything else about dark energy and negative pressure that you can find. Gravity is about to get some changes made that arise out of modern technological exploration, which does not sit around with technologically old farts that seem to be trying to beat the rest of us in the race towards senility.

If you don't want to play new games, I would gladly let you two out, and get back to start dealing with people that are hip to Newton's modified 1st law of Motion - i.e.-

"A technology in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by a "net" force." (Bring it on!)

Hopefully, you two have a small appreciation for a humorous view of what's been going back and forth between us in the past. I'm not trying to insult anybody. I just would like to see if I can draw you (or anyone) into a place where people who know enough about Negative pressure and its promises of change, can have their foresight rekindled.

Without malice....

fleep



 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #108 on: 19/02/2008 18:09:39 »
Fleep it is not for us to prove our case it is for you to prove yours and you have totally failed to do that so far.  In fact it's worse than that you have not even stated clearly exactly what your case is. Newtonian gravitation as corrected by relativity for high velocities works both for understanding the astronomical world, operating spacecraft and direct experiments using materials in the laboratory your alternative theory must first produce results identical to this (which it does not) and then add something to it that can be tested.

Our attempts to convince you of the errors in your thinking are clearly pointless.  I welcome innovative scientific thinking but what you have presented so far is not that.

Reading through the article you mention and agree that the evidence in favour of dark energy is mounting but this does not have any significant effect on any time or distance scale that is ever likely to involve mankind.  The basic expansion of the universe only becomes significant over distances of tens of millions of light years and dark energy at distances many times greater than this.

If you are referring to the article on "ultralight" energy.  this is a concept that only applies at the time of the initial inflation proposed way back before the first picosecond of the big bang and has absolutely no relevance to the behaviour of the universe today as the article makes quite clear.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2008 18:44:16 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #109 on: 19/02/2008 19:28:38 »
Fleep,
Read the title of the thread.
If you don't accept that the answer, by common consent is "yes, of course gravity exists" then, as I said before.
"Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool."
Otherwise this is just a waste of bandwidth.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #110 on: 21/02/2008 06:30:44 »
I can scarcely believe that this thread is still going on.
fleep, when you post ill conceived, unsubstantiated, whimsical speculation, accompanied by a seemingly self-destructive desire to conceive explanations that are pure fantasy, you must expect some small measure of criticism.
Case in point:
If we take a hard look at something local, we have our lunar tides to consider.....It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead. The moon does not “pull” the tides. The atmospheric depression caused by the moon’s proportionally greater positive pressure, (and the universally huge supply of negative pressure), actually pushes our tides as the moon progresses.
Therefore why is the tidal bulge - high tide - beneath the moon, not 90 degrees around the Earth from the sublunar point? If your explanation were correct low tide should be beneath the moon.
You have offered a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore it is scientific. You have made a prediction based upon that hypothesis. The prediction does not match observation. Thereofore your hypothesis is false.
 

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #111 on: 23/02/2008 02:51:05 »
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13122.0

I have a hypothesis about gravity, please take a look, thanks.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #112 on: 28/02/2008 17:43:31 »
Therefore why is the tidal bulge - high tide - beneath the moon, not 90 degrees around the Earth from the sublunar point? If your explanation were correct low tide should be beneath the moon.
You have offered a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore it is scientific. You have made a prediction based upon that hypothesis. The prediction does not match observation. Thereofore your hypothesis is false.
[/quote]

Well, before I help do your homework for you, I should thank you for the usual compliments.

Now. Do you know what a "Barycentre" is? Look it up, and explain to yourself how an inward global pressure would affect the tides. (Don't be fooled by the ellipse.)

fleep
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #113 on: 28/02/2008 18:36:56 »
Sorry fleep, but this is what you said;

The moon, also being in a “rigid” orbit, wins the pressure-fight, and Negative Pressure/ Dark Energy, has to make the concession, and take over the excess “work”. It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead.

(My italics).

At least run a consistent argument. What you are proposing makes no sense, and just changing the format of the argument each time somebody notices a flaw is no way to convince that you are 'onto' something.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #114 on: 28/02/2008 19:20:02 »
Fleep,
Read the title of the thread.
If you don't accept that the answer, by common consent is "yes, of course gravity exists" then, as I said before.
"Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool."
Otherwise this is just a waste of bandwidth.

Making up stuff pretending that tiny effects like dark energy have anything to do with it doesn't help.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #115 on: 02/03/2008 20:22:54 »
This is a general reply, since nobody seems to be on track to resolving something.


I can’t figure out why nobody has understood the logic of how negative pressure is supposed to be working. If one follows the logical sequence of definitions, it should be observable.

Let’s try the check list method. If you don’t agree with a statement, separate it and explain why.

First, the known facts from Wiki, by general analogy, and from successive logic:

Einstein theorized the Cosmological Constant as a negative pressure in 1922. “This energy” he said, “would be needed to keep the cosmos balanced in a static state; a sort of freeze-frame existence where planets might move, but the universe itself remained relatively fixed.” Ergo, NP must be there to keep the cosmos in static balance.

1)   Negative pressure (NP) is now a confirmed discovery, announced in November 2005.
2)   “Pressure” by definition, is a force,and is not “energy”, so what was called NP is a Negative Force.

3)   “Force” is what causes a mass to accelerate. (It is NOT the experience itself, but its cause.)
4)   “Force” is the bully.
5)   “Force” may cause e.g - a twist, a push, a pull, or a punch. Energy is a fist in action.
6)   So -"Force” causes a “fight”. Energy throws a fist. A landed punch is the “Work” being done.
7)   “Force” (as a logic sequence) equates to POSITIVE FORCE and the consequences.
8)   “Negative Force”, (as in 2), is then, the opposite of an energetic incident, causing “work” to be absorbed, or cancelled, (such as the nullification of the need to complete what is normally a compulsory 3rd law reaction, such as in a case where the action itself has occurred on a scale/magnitude (of area/perimeter/distance/ volume), too large to be fulfilled, without disrupting the “regular business” of the cosmos). This interpretation is "in line" with the understanding that Einstein attached to his theoretical Cosmological Constant.


A)   So, we know a Positive FORCE (PF) really exists, and Energy (E) does Work (W) :  PF x E = W
B)   And we know a Negative Force (NF)  also exists,  causing this:                   PF x E = (W/NF)= 0

“A” demands a 3rd law reaction.

“B” “forgives” the need to fulfill a 3rd law reaction. (See 8) above.


Sorry, but this is hard to explain. That’s the best I can do so far. When I get some agreement or even logical reasons to examine another direction, I’ll be happy to proceed further with those who are willing.
====================================================================================================

This is a very simple exercise. Let’s see some true colours.

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #116 on: 03/03/2008 11:25:22 »
Now. Do you know what a "Barycentre" is? Look it up, and explain to yourself how an inward global pressure would affect the tides. (Don't be fooled by the ellipse.)
No. You explain it. You are the one making the aabsurd claims. Explain why depression of the tides is 90 degrees out of phase with what your hypothesis predicts.
Also explain why you previously claimed the depression was beneath the moon, as angst pointed out.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #117 on: 03/03/2008 18:56:48 »
"since nobody seems to be on track to resolving something."
Well, I'm trying to resolve something, specificly the answers to some questions. Just as a reminder here they are again.
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT
Feel free to answer them or, perhaps at least accept the you are ignoring them because they (like a lot of the real world) get in the way of your theory.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #118 on: 04/03/2008 14:57:52 »
What” absurd claims” are you talking about, Ophi? The moon does what it does. I didn’t claim that pressure is going to make the moon or the tides act any differently than they are known to do, or as they would under some other “method”. I’m saying that the way the tides work is exactly how they do it under the pressures generated as my theory could only predict within Einstein’s Cosmological Constant.

 What is happening to the tides is attributed to a “Force” called gravity, (though a ‘force” is only a “cause”). Neither a ‘force”, nor a “cause” is a kind of “energy”, (which is needed to perform “work”), so a “cause” does not do work, (unless it has energy conveying it. ) But there is no proven means of conveying this “cause” to its intended ‘work”, so this force which is only a cause, with no way to get to work, does nothing at all, and still, “gravity” keeps getting the credit, even in the face of the highly plausible truth, which the obstinate simply refuse to even consider, even though it’s from Einstein.

When will people wake up to another possibility that is completely logical in how it pushes the tides; and is not based on something that is pure theory? Since the new logic is complete and explainable, (WHICH THE GRAVITY THEORY IS NOT, after 320 years), then the new logic is right, and the old logic is wrong in some way, or they are BOTH wrong. Which likelihood would a sensible mind assume?

 If the tides are being pushed by something, in concert with the motion of the moon, (instead of tides being “pulled”), and the moon is running in an elliptical orbit, then the pushing pressure will be greatest at perigee, which is when the Moon is closest to Earth.

Perigee (Close to Earth) = High pressure = high push = low Neap Tides
Apogee (Far from Earth) = Low pressure =low push = high Spring Tides = Full Moon and New Moon.

That, is how the tides work. Check an online working model and you will see that what they have constructed to show a “pulling gravity” at work, is the same as how the model would look if the tides are pushed as described above.

My theory is all based on a proven Cosmological Constant that came from the mind of Einstein in the 20th century. Your theory came from the mind of another genius too, but he never thought about the things Einstein did, and negative pressure was not discovered until 2005, so Newton didn’t have all the cards to play a full hand.

The newly confirmed Cosmological Constant explains all orbits, as it does our moon and the tides. It more broadly explains Newton’s 3rd law at event size scales that had no meaningful way of doing that. Coulomb’s Law and Pascal’s Law fit right in where they have to be considered.

The Constant is UNIVERSAL. That means that if it’s used to try to explain cosmological anomalies that do not fit Newton, or even relativity, it will likely answer many questions that haven’t even come up yet.

The Constant works with the Inverse Square Equation, because the answers that we have been getting to that equation are all the answers to measurements that the “adoption” of Einstein’s Constant would produce. We have been using math that is correct, but credited to the wrong physical reasoning.

Here are the questions posed by BC, with the answers to “if it isn’t gravity?”:

WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT? – A universal constant system. (A“Plasma”).
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT– A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).

Negative Pressure simply “replaces gravity”. There is no universally mutual attraction within matter. It all “pushes”, or expands, or even contracts, as the universe requires. (It’s like the universe is “breathing”, as I see it.)

Most spatial bodies are round, and a globally-exerted external pressure makes more sense as a reason for that “coincidence” than does “accretion”.

 Negative Pressure probably falls under “fluid plasma”, which permits/performs/allows, and even causes a variety of things universally. (See “Common plasmas” in Wikipedia. Take a look at the properties of Plasmas and you will see that plasma is the only universally interstitial thing that qualifies to be an “environment”, a “conveyor”, a “worker”, or just about anything that it needs to be.

Now. I have answered the questions of BC and Ophiolite. Have you two the courage to assemble a reasonably complete logical argument (for a change), that absolutely proves Einstein wrong, which would then prove that I am wrong too? I could accept that. If you won’t accept that challenge, and insist on just sidestepping again, then you have lost this thing that you have turned into a needless debate, instead of helping it grow into an intelligent search for a logical truth.

You will be happy to know that I will not even try to pursue this all the way into the incredible complexities of plasmas. My major points have been made and logically proven. No complete argument has been presented (from your side) that has borne evidence that gravity is able to perform "work" of any kind. My argument is complete, (in that small area), and the gravity argument is not. When somebody finds  a real "graviton" to plug the pin-sized hole that is slowly sinking your battleship, I will be there with my hat held to my chest and my head bowed.

If the coffin catches up to me before the real evidence starts trickling in, I won’t have any problem going down while my headstone is saying that I was “barking mad”.  I just don’t want it to say that I was, “blind as a bat, going out in the noonday sun”.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #119 on: 04/03/2008 18:49:12 »
"WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT? – A universal constant system. (A“Plasma”).
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT– A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
"
Fleep, as you may be aware, the word "plasma" already has 2 uses in science. Introoducing a third use is, at best unhelpful.
I propose that you choose a more generally accepted word for the "thing" that causes those effects.
If you happen to choose to replace the phrase "A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”)." with the word "gravity" then it seems all our past disputes have been matters of nomenclature.


Incidentally, like many othre things you have proposed as reasons for things traditionally ascribed to gravity, the cosmological constant is small. That's why, as you say, it was only recently discovered. It is, of course, far too small to have anything to do with the tides, moon, orbiys of the planets etc except as a barely measurable correction. Insisting otherwise is roughly equivalent to saying that a few tiles came off my roof the other day, not because of the gale that was blowing, but because the moon's reflected radiation pressure had previously held it in place, but a cloud got in the way.
"Barking mad" seems a reasonable layman's description. Not being able to see this probably counts as "blind as a bat" as well.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #120 on: 06/03/2008 00:05:24 »
Fleep you are making claims without substantiating them.  As BC says the cavendish and eotvos experiments proved universal gravitation in the lab to a high degree of accuracy and the motion of allsorts of bodies in space confirm this. to be taken serously you need to do a lab experiment to prove your theory numericaly and explain quite clearly where the other experimenters got it wrong.  Without this all your words are pointless.

One addition to your terminology  you describe gravity as a pressure.  A pressure acts in all directions and is a scalar quantity unlike gravity where the force is a vector in one direction so your use of the term pressure is incorrect in normal physics.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #121 on: 12/03/2008 15:37:27 »
Hi;

Just thought I'd let you all know that I have the answer now, and I thank all those who contributed any "help" of any kind at all, even if some of it was painful to me. We learn from everything, including our mistakes.

Obviously I'm not about to dump a very important discovery into an open public forum of any kind, and I apologize for this, but the (apparently completely logical) answer will be out there "soon".

I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe.

Thanks again.

fleep
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #122 on: 12/03/2008 23:47:40 »
Hi;

Just thought I'd let you all know that I have the answer now, and I thank all those who contributed any "help" of any kind at all, even if some of it was painful to me. We learn from everything, including our mistakes.

Obviously I'm not about to dump a very important discovery into an open public forum of any kind, and I apologize for this, but the (apparently completely logical) answer will be out there "soon".

I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe.

Thanks again.

fleep

I thought you claimed that you already did have the answers. And you seemed very keen to share those ideas upon these boards......As I recall, it was not you that asked the questions, it was you who failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the questions asked of you. So (in short) what are you on about?
« Last Edit: 12/03/2008 23:49:12 by angst »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #123 on: 13/03/2008 18:41:12 »
He's just realised that his ideas just don't work or produce what is actually observed in practice and is finding a quiet exit route.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #124 on: 13/03/2008 20:45:14 »
I don't much care what his exit route is just as long as that daft idea doesn't come back to taint any scientific site.

"I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe."
Don't worry, it's safe already. Nobody is going to steal junk. Getting anyone other than yourself to value it might be more tricky.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #124 on: 13/03/2008 20:45:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums