The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 85701 times)

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #125 on: 28/03/2008 12:41:24 »
Getting anyone other than yourself to value it might be more tricky.
I valued it as superior entertainment to Coronation Street.  :)
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #126 on: 03/04/2008 00:28:22 »
 Hi folks;

What Would Make Apples Fall Down?©

In a simpler world, it would seem obvious to many that if gravity had never come along, apples just fell because of their weight. Then, along comes “gravity” and all of a sudden, the consideration and even the definition of weight has to include some new and fictional “attractive force”.

How come the atmosphere weighs trillions of tons, and it’s all sitting on top of our oceans at 14.7 pounds per square inch, but all that weight is just air that falls around me, sitting over my head and shoulders, and yet, science doesn’t insist on adding that to my weight? That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not? In fact, it would make much more sense since MY weight presses down.

But that isn’t always the way science thinks. Modern scientists are getting into the heavy stuff, and one of the latest promising things is Negative Pressure.

Think about that while I’m finalizing my theory, which seems to make sense.

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #127 on: 03/04/2008 07:07:20 »
"That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not? "
No, it wouldn't. Pressure in a fluid acts in all directions.
Sorry to kill your new idea so early.
Feel free to dream up a new one.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #128 on: 03/04/2008 12:37:48 »
Hi BC;

The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere, with 75% of its weight. Pascal's Law, (of which you are quoting a convenient portion), is speaking of fluids in a closed vessel. Please explain the "vessel" that applies in this case, and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down.

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #129 on: 03/04/2008 16:13:44 »
In a simpler world, it would seem obvious to many that if gravity had never come along, apples just fell because of their weight.

Sorry? Fell where, because of their weight? What is weight? Why would something that weighs fall anywhere? Doesn't the Earth weigh something? Where is it falling to? Or the Sun, for that matter?

What are you babbling about?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #130 on: 03/04/2008 18:05:03 »
Hi Angst:

So you're off again, avoiding the questions and having to provide intelligent answers. I'm not getting into all that elementary crap again. Just address my question please. If you know it. Thanks.

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #131 on: 03/04/2008 18:33:12 »
Fleep, the observable fact is that the air presses up as well as down.
Here's an explanation of the experiment to prove it.
The site is aimed at schoolchildren which give an idea of your level of understanding of physics..
http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/ssd/2002/ssdwater.html
Saying that I didn't quote the whole of Pascal's law is not relevant. It not only works for a closed vessel, it works in the particular example you refered to.
So
"Please explain the "vessel" that applies in this case,"
There is no vessel, there is no need for one.
And
"and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down."
That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several thigs can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up?


The answer to how does it press up on you whne most of you isn't a horizontal surface is a matter of the resolution of forces and I'm not wasting my time explaining that to someone who clearly doesn't, or won't, understand the basics.

You are at least as guilty as Angst of ignoring the question.
He asked where things fell to?, in effect, which way is down?
None of your ramblings before managed to address this point and you haven't done so now.
In order to get taken remotely seriously you need to explain how things know which way to fall.
Also, "That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not?"
No, it wouldn't. The force is perfectly sensible - it's there it's called gravity and everyone knows it. You on the other hand rattle on about forces so small that there's not even any certainty they exist, and pretend that in some way they are responsible for weight.

While we are at it I notice the thread's title has changed from the clearly preposterous "Is gravity even real" to the slightly less clearly defined "Is gravitation even real".
Nice attempt at sleight of hand, but I don't see it fooling anyone.

Why are you wasting time and bandwidth with this daft idea again?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #132 on: 03/04/2008 21:17:44 »
Hi BC;

You said: “Fleep, the observable fact is that the air presses up as well as down.”

Correct. That is, it’s correct if the face (s) that would be facing into the open atmosphere would have atmospheric pressure around them, but, if the object is heavy, and sunk a bit into the mud, and it’s level, and there is no space under it, then where is the equal atmospheric pressure supposed to be in place underfoot to be accommodated to push up? There’s no air space there underfoot. We and everything else just push down on the ground because we have all the atomic weight within us, which needs no help from “gravity”.

I’ll play your silly game about the kids experiment too.  If you try it yourself, you’ll notice that the lid
Re:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/ssd/2002/ssdwater.html
stays on all right, for a short time. The air pressure can’t push through the cup’s bottom of course.  As soon as outside air pressure starts leaking in from the underside at the edge, (which is NOT sitting on the ground), the air bubbles upward to the upward-facing bottom, and starts to fill the cup with air pressure. As soon as the inside air pressure becomes strong enough to push the weight of the water out, it does so, and the weight of the water falls by itself (without gravity) to the ground. The number of PSI leaking in that it would take to push the water out would not be much.


“Saying that I didn't quote the whole of Pascal's law is not relevant. It not only works for a closed vessel, it works in the particular example you refered to.”

So then, I can just break the rules of science like you are, and say, for example, “For every action, there’s another one”, without specifying the full explanatory text of the 3rd Law? I think you had better ask Blaise why he bothered to include the “closed vessel part” if it doesn’t matter.
By saying that a closed vessel is not needed here, (where I’m standing), you are saying that the atmosphere is a closed vessel. It would have to be, to be able to hold its own weight down on our planet, so everything inside that closed vessel would also be a closed vessel. I’m a closed vessel, and so are you, because our cells are all closed, and they obey Pascal’s Law. What makes the atmosphere a closed vessel? Why it’s the external pressure being applied, which will be revealed in my theory if it passes high academic scrutiny.


“There is no vessel, there is no need for one.”  Now you’ll have to tell me why.

And, “and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down." I answered that in part, up above, and the rest follows, so let’s go on.

“That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several things can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up? “

That’s a cop-out. You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. Now you’re implying that it’s centripetal force or some other fabricated idea that was needed to help explain gravity. Sure it’s Newton’s Law, but if there is a (centripetal) FORCE, like any other force, it needs an energy transfer to fulfill the 3rd Law. Wiki says “Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) can act as a centripetal force.” They forgot to mention “pressure”, as in atmospheric weight that bears down on everything, and don’t forget that our atmosphere is true “weight”, (without any “gravity influence”).

"The answer to how does it press up on you when most of you isn't a horizontal surface is a matter of the resolution of forces and I'm not wasting my time explaining that to someone who clearly doesn't, or won't, understand the basics."

And I wouldn’t either if I were you. Luckily, I know exactly what you’ll resort to next, by now.

"In order to get taken remotely seriously you need to explain how things know which way to fall."

The answer to that is in this message. It’s “naked weight” under global pressure that knows no direction, so the weight goes where the atmosphere allows it to, which is straight down.

And It wasn’t me that changed the title. I don’t even know if or where that happened. I wouldn’t even know how to change a title in mid-thread. I guess the moderators did it, if it actually happened.

"Why are you wasting time and bandwidth with this daft idea again?"

I guess it’s the same reason that a tormented soul would even bother to reply to something he fears might be right. We’re both in the same boat, but I now have oars. You only have a hypothetical “graviton”.

fleep
 

Offline angst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #133 on: 04/04/2008 14:58:20 »
Why do you think, fleep, that atmospheric pressure is higher closer to the surface of the Earth than away from it? What is it that makes the atmosphere cling to the Earth? Why doesn't it, for example, cling to the Moon, or to Mars to the same degree?

Why does something 'weigh' more on the Earth than on Mars? Weight, you have provided, is a given - yet clearly it matters upon which body you weigh the item.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2008 15:00:02 by angst »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #134 on: 04/04/2008 18:14:29 »
Fleep, wouldn't your atmospheric pressure suggestion imply that if we stepped out of a plane at high altitude, with lots of atmosphere underneath us, we would, in fact, not fall?

You are making a huge intellectual leap every time you say something like "We and everything else just push down on the ground because we have all the atomic weight within us, which needs no help from “gravity”." - Why would mass push down on something? You include gravity in all of your hypotheses and just pretend it's not there.

Also, what keeps the atmosphere around the earth?  If it isn't held on by gravity (and therefore of higher pressure closer to the earth) then why doesn't it just drift off?  How can atmospheric pressure push down without a 'down' defined by the attractive force of gravity?

Your ideas do not hold water.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #135 on: 04/04/2008 19:53:54 »
Hi critics:

We All Want to Know What Down Really Means in Science

“Down is defined as that direction which an object moves in reference to the Earth when the object is allowed to fall freely.”

So, if an apple that is at rest simply begins to fall from a tree, and it is acting under the influence of the burden of the atmosphere, (which is 14.7 PSI at sea level), and it changes velocity as it drops; (32 fps, then faster); then the 1st Law cannot apply, Since it is accelerating, the 2nd Law applies.

The falling of the apple then is not the action itself. It is an “incident” that triggers the action. How the 3rd Law is fulfilled will be covered below. The apple’s state of inertia did not begin until the apple’s stem broke off the tree, which is when the necessary “force” kicked in. That “force” was the result of the existence of the surrounding atmosphere.

Newton’s 1st Law – “A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless a net force acts upon it.” This law is often simplified into the sentence "An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force".

 If no net force* acts on a particle, then it is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, (as defined by the 1st Law), observed when the particle moves without any change in velocity. But since the *“net force” is mass x acceleration, (2nd Law), and there is acceleration as it falls, then an inertial reference frame cannot be used.

Newton’s 2nd Law – “The net force on a body is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration.”

Wikipedia says: “Since an inertial reference frame is defined by the 1st Law, asking a proof of the first law from the second law is a logical fallacy.” I.e. - If the 2nd law demands acceleration, which is a change of velocity, but the 1st Law demands a constant velocity, then that is illogical.

So, since a net force IS acting on the apple, an Inertial Frame of Reference cannot be used in the case of a falling apple, and the 2nd Law can only be used without a frame of reference.

Under the section called “The three laws in detail”, Wikipedia begins the detail of the 2nd Law by saying; **“Observed from an inertial reference frame, etc.” This defies what they already told us we could not do. We cannot use an Inertial Frame of Reference for the 2nd law because:

1)   – There is a net force acting on the apple. (mass x acceleration)
2)   -  The apple is accelerating as it falls, so
3)   -  Acceleration is not a constant velocity, so
4)   -   An Inertial Frame of Reference cannot be used for the 2nd Law.

Wikipedia thus redeems itself (of the fallacy shown at ** above) in this regard by saying:

“In the given interpretation mass, acceleration, and, most importantly, force are assumed to be externally defined quantities. This is the most common, but not the only interpretation: one can consider the laws to be a definition of these quantities. Notice that the second law only holds when the observation is made from an inertial reference frame, and since an inertial reference frame is defined by the first law, asking a proof of the first law from the second law is a logical fallacy.”

(The explanation of this fallacy ends here. The foregoing is my evidence to myself thus far, that I let you see that I comprehend what I have just analyzed, before proceeding.)


In Motte's 1729 translation (from Newton's Latin), the second law of motion reads:

“LAW II: The alteration of motion (acceleration) is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.”

From the initial observation and the foregoing interpretation of Newton’s 3 Laws, it would appear that we are left wanting when we apply the 2nd law to what occurs when an apple falls from a tree.

If a falling apple is accelerating, it is by the means of a constant force. It has a vector, which is both magnitude and direction. The magnitude is the length or distance covered by the falling apple. The direction is obviously down.

The apple falls downwards naturally, with the weight of the atmosphere having the only effect. Although the apple would be surrounded by the atmospheric pressure of the same intensity all around it, (but only if the apple was at rest in the air); the falling apple’s exterior pressure reading would be subject to nothing but the atmospheric pressure (only) on the bottom of the apple as it falls, because the side and top pressures would be “falling away” as the apple dropped, then instantly refilling with air, (which would fulfill the 3rd Law.)That would mean that the apple, (if falling,) must go in the direction of least (pressure)resistance, which in this case, is downwards, where the pressure is continuously and momentarily the least. Assemblages of collective atomic weights can move in no other direction than down, when they begin to fall, and they need no help from any “attraction”.

The foregoing may be the most basic answer as to how one could define the directions of “down” or “up”, as opposed to any other geometrically inclined directions.

None of this process demands a lot of thinking or any presence of something Newton called “gravity”.

Here, once again is my Model 1, which explained much of this back on November 18th, 2007 in my message 139967, but obviously did not do it well enough.

Atmosphere of the Earth – Falling from 62 mi. – (A.k.a. – Karman Line).
Model  1 - 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”.



Yes. I think I understand the meaning of both “up” and “down”.

Thanks for your patience.

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #136 on: 05/04/2008 17:56:17 »
"and sunk a bit into the mud" So the mud's fluid...
"So, if an apple that is at rest simply begins to fall from a tree, and it is acting under the influence of the burden of the atmosphere, (which is 14.7 PSI at sea level), "
As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air so the air pressure clearly has nothing to do with it.
"“Down is defined as that direction which an object moves in reference to the Earth when the object is allowed to fall freely.”"
That's a usefull start. Now what happens when something is dropped by someone on the moon? It still falls down, but not towards the earth. the thing tahe tells it which way to fall (and how fast) is gravity.

"You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. "
No I didn't. Gravity is perfectly clearly holding us down. I said that the reason we don't add the force that the air exerts on you to your weight is that the pressure force isn't up or down, it acts so as to squash you equally in all directions.

"Here, once again is my Model 1, which explained much of this back on November 18th, 2007 in my message 139967, but obviously did not do it well enough."
It was wrong headed then, it still is. Repeating it doesnt make it any better.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2008 18:02:44 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #137 on: 05/04/2008 20:47:36 »
BC;

"As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air"
 
Are you cracking up? There's no friction in the vacuum. Stuff whips through it at 17500 MPH and more. Everything is falling or orbiting out there, and nothing that's falling is only going at 32 fps/sec.

"Now what happens when something is dropped by someone on the moon? It still falls down, but not towards the earth."

Why would it fall towards the Earth? Why would it fall any direction but straight down? Like on the Earth, it has to be accelerated in another direction to make it go in any other direction than down, and nothing is attracting it downwards. The external pressure that I still have not explained to you is directing it downwards under Pascal's law. That explanation will make it all clear, and I'm not just dumping it into this forum. It needs expert appraisal (and hopefully affirmation) which obviously seems unavailable here.

BC said that I said: "You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. No I didn't."

No, you're right. I can't even find where I am alleged to have said that, but if I did, I'm sorry. I guess I must have misread however I thought you said that. I know that is certainly not something you would say. It's pressure all right, but it's not air pressure.

"I said that the reason we don't add the force that the air exerts on you to your weight is that the pressure force isn't up or down, it acts so as to squash you equally in all directions."

Which is why I had to remind you that you can't be pushed upward from underneath when you're standing in mud.

You said of my Model1:" "It was wrong headed then, it still is."

How many times have you been invited to logically "trash it"? Insults expressed without validity are a cheap ploy my friend. Trash it, then we'll talk.

"That's all folks."

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #138 on: 06/04/2008 20:25:09 »
Fleep, I'm puzzled that you couldn't find this.

“That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several things can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up? “

That’s a cop-out. You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. Now you’re implying that it’s centripetal force or some other fabricated idea that was needed to help explain gravity. Sure it’s Newton’s Law, but if there is a (centripetal) FORCE, like any other force, it needs an energy transfer to fulfill the 3rd Law. Wiki says “Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) can act as a centripetal force.” They forgot to mention “pressure”, as in atmospheric weight that bears down on everything, and don’t forget that our atmosphere is true “weight”, (without any “gravity influence”).

""As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air"
 
Are you cracking up? There's no friction in the vacuum. Stuff whips through it at 17500 MPH and more. Everything is falling or orbiting out there, and nothing that's falling is only going at 32 fps/sec."
No, I'm not. Things in a vacuum chamber near the eathh's surface accelerate downwards at about 33 feet per second per second. That do pretty much the same in air.

"Why would it fall towards the Earth?"
Beacause that's how you chose to define "down".

"Which is why I had to remind you that you can't be pushed upward from underneath when you're standing in mud."
Bollocks - see Newton (III)


"How many times have you been invited to logically "trash it"? Insults expressed without validity are a cheap ploy my friend. Trash it, then we'll talk."
OK it totally fails to explain anything which is a catastrophic fault for a theory. In particular, it cannot be relevant anywhere apart from earth. Even on earth it's not applicable to things in a vacuum.


Overall, your peoblem seems to be that you think air pressure has something to do with why we stay here on the earth. It has, but only indirectly; the earth's gravity pulls on us and it pulls the air.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #139 on: 07/04/2008 05:35:05 »
I'm concerned for your mental health fleep, i think you should see a psychologist.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #140 on: 07/04/2008 13:58:22 »
Hi BC;;



You said: "Things in a vacuum chamber near the eathh's surface accelerate downwards at about 33 feet per second per second. That do pretty much the same in air."

Yes they do. I assumed you meant a spatial vacuum.

If the apple was falling on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, then no atmosphere would be involved or affected, but what is called the “centripetal force”, which is supposed to be “oriented toward the axis of rotation” (according to Wiki), is credited with the direction of fall, so under the current belief system of Newton’s “gravity church”, (to which I don’t belong), “down” means the same on the Moon as on the Earth, or anywhere else. You are obligated to believe that because you belong to his church. I believe that for a different reason. 

A “centripetal force”. It is not (of itself), even a real force, as they admit. Energy goes to work to serve “forces”. Energy does not work for something that has nothing but a catch-all name, like a “force requirement”, as Wiki calls it. Thus, if centripetal force has no energy delivery-system of its own, it is not a “force” at all, and you certainly can’t go ascribing any kind of performance to it. From this viewpoint, the term “centripetal force” means nothing, (even in true Science), because Science has already “covered” their “gravity” and other” forces” under their own definitions.

If something is genuinely happening to “direct the force inward”, as the centripetal force term says, then that “something” is a true form of globally-applied energy, fomented by the presence of a real force. That force is obviously commanding a downward pressure upon us and the oceans. It is not the atmosphere that holds us down. It's an external pressure. That is why we don’t fall off the Earth, the Moon, or any other spatial body, and “centripetal force” means nothing for the reasons stated.

Atmospheres and vacuums are incidental next to the consideration of external pressure, and gravity still has no job to do at all.

Thanks

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #141 on: 07/04/2008 20:05:19 »
"If the apple was falling on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, then no atmosphere would be involved or affected, but what is called the “centripetal force”, which is supposed to be “oriented toward the axis of rotation” (according to Wiki), is credited with the direction of fall, so under the current belief system of Newton’s “gravity church”, (to which I don’t belong), “down” means the same on the Moon as on the Earth, or anywhere else. You are obligated to believe that because you belong to his church. I believe that for a different reason.  "

That's simply not true.
The effect of rotation is small. Gravity is pretty much the same at the poles as at the equator so the reason for things falling down on the moon can't be that.
It can't be the air which isn't there and it can't be the moons rotation or it would not work at the poles.
So all that stuff about centripetal forces is a waste of time (quite a lot of it's also meaningless "Energy goes to work to serve “forces”. Energy does not work for something that has nothing but a catch-all name, like a “force requirement”, as Wiki calls it.")
It's real btw.
http://xkcd.com/123/

Eventually you realise that "force is obviously commanding a downward pressure upon us and the oceans." Well, strictly it's just a force not a pressure because it doesn't depend on area but whatever- that's an easy mistake to make.

The point is that this commanding downward force is called gravity except by you who calls it an "external pressure".






 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #142 on: 13/04/2008 00:01:56 »
Hi BC:

BC said; "That's simply not true." ExactlY what part of my statement is "simply not true". You must be more explicit in your critique, or you will lose your credibility.

"The effect of rotation is small. Gravity is pretty much the same at the poles as at the equator, so the reason for things falling down on the moon can't be that." (What specific part of your point was "that" referring to?)

"It can't be the air which isn't there and it can't be the moons rotation or it would not work at the poles."

I've been thinking about what you said (above), and it's caused me to wonder why you would make such a presumptuous claim. Please give me a precise explanation of why you think that your asssumption would be true.

I need something to build on. Thanks for your assistance.

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #143 on: 13/04/2008 13:32:38 »
BC said; "That's simply not true." ExactlY what part of my statement is "simply not true". You must be more explicit in your critique, or you will lose your credibility.

I don't think I need credibility lessons from you and, as practically anyone reading it would see, the bit I quoted is the bit that's simply not true. The apple on the moon falls due to gravity so all that stuff about centrifugal forces is not true.

By "that" I was refering to the moon's rotation.
The reason for things faalling on the moon cannot be due to it's rotation because things fall at the poles. precisely at the pole the rotation doesn't give rise to any motion at all so the effect is the same as if it were stationary.
Since things fall there, it can't be due to the moon's rotation. It must be something else and that something is called gravity.
Here's the evidence that there's a gravitational pull, even above the poles.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/smart/smartatmoon.html
Pointing out reallity isn't persumption.

What you need to build on is a grasp of basic science.
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #144 on: 24/05/2008 10:39:08 »
BC .. from an impartial observer, .. your irresponsible style of debate gives you no credit at all, you were unable to defeat fleep by argument so you began insulting him. This is a clear act of submition, not to his theory but to his debating superiority.  fleep is clearly attempting to open a string of debate, he didn't pilot the Enola Gay!! stop acting like a little boy (forgive the pun) and allow open debate, the secret is accepting you MAY be wrong!!  .. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND MAN! you are the problem not the solution!
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #145 on: 24/05/2008 13:49:57 »
"your irresponsible style of debate gives you no credit at all,"

Actually people have credited me for it.
"you were unable to defeat fleep by argument "
Actually, I did. He has yet to answer my points.
"so you began insulting him"
Actually, six pages back I began with this


"Now I must ask: If weight alone makes every molecular body fall, either in space, or in any atmosphere, then where is the need for another force that we call “gravity”? If it does exist as a force, it would seem to be an atomically external effect only, which is said to “attract” other matter.
"
Since weight is, by definition, the force of gravity on an object, I think this question has problems.
"Now, why would a force called gravity even be required? Matter is electrical in nature, and the measurement between point charges under Coulomb’s Law produces a result that equates to Newtonian math."
It's true that Coulomb's law and Newton's law have the same form ie they are both inverse square laws. However most of the time we see objects that are electically neutral overall. To take a simple example HCl is a gas which has a distinct dipole to it, the Cl is slightly negatively charged and the H is positively charged to the same degree.
However if you back off more than a few times the size of the molecule then what you see is not the + charge or the - charge, but the overall effect. Since the charges are the same size (but oposite sign) and roughly as far away as each other they parly cancel out.
The overall effect is that dipole interactions fall off as the inverse cube of the distance.
Only gravity, which is always an attractive force (so far as we know) can have an effect at large distances.

"Perhaps they do things such as controlling our tides, an often suspiciously inconsistent happening attributed to “the moon’s gravity”, which is alleged to be only 1/6 as strong as our own."
What is inconsistent, nevermind suspiciously so, about the tides being driven by the gravity of the moon and sun?

And I'm still waiting for a meaningfull reply.

I'm not sure if I actually insulted him anyway, I have voiced opinions that he might not like, but I can evince them. This is more than can be said for his theories.
"This is a clear act of submition, not to his theory but to his debating superiority."
Trust me, it's not submission and I simply don't think he has a superior debating style.
"fleep is clearly attempting to open a string of debate,"
No, it's clear he wasn't. If he wished to engage in debate he would have replied to the questions. He didn't. Simply repeating bizarre notions without (or even in the face of ) evidence isn't debate - it's rambling. On this basis I think it would be hard to say he has the better debating style and that's why I don't consider pointing out his failings to be submission.

"he didn't pilot the Enola Gay!!"
No, the guy who did that was acting perfectly sensibly at the time and the bomb's effect on shortening the war probably saved more people than it killed directly.
"stop acting like a little boy (forgive the pun)"
Erm, I may be wrong but I think that the one effectively saying "I'm right and all of you are wrong" is the one acting like a little boy (and the pun is in poor taste).
"allow open debate"
I have tried to debate this but theother guy doesn't answer questions, he just raises irrelevant stuff.
"the secret is accepting you MAY be wrong!! "
I'm always prepared to accept that I might be wrong. Just as soon as anyone comes up with some real evidence.

"GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND MAN!"
OK you think insulting people is evidence of poor debating ability; what do you think about "SHOUTING"?


"you are the problem not the solution! "
The problem as I saw it was someone wasting the site's bandwidth and reducing its credibility by posting rubbish. It took a while but I put a stop to that.It seems perhaps that I am the solution.

In light of the fact that essentially everything you wrote was wrong, might I ask what you think your necromancy achieved?
Also, perhaps you might like to explain things like tides, satelites and other things that fleep's stuff fails to do rather than simpy attacking my style inacurately





 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #146 on: 25/05/2008 12:52:18 »
Stop squabbling, you kids!
If Fleep could produce a theory as complete as Newton's, along with the relevant Calculations, Predictions, Evidence etc. etc. we would need to be worried.
As he hasn't, this is just good fun.
No point in losing yer rag.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Hi folks;

Just resurrecting Cavendish to re-bury him.


Introducing the (Un-named) Experiment

Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions. If they are to be debated, present your questions first, please, so I can consider anything that did not occur to me. (Follow the description and draw what you “see”.)

1)   Fact – Mercury is a metal, in a fluid state, at room temperature.
2)   Fact -  Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids.
3)   Fact – Two separate samples poured from one bottle should look the same at the “meniscus”.
4)   Fact – We have 2 identical glass cones, each 3-1/4” high. They are inverted to each other.
5)   Fact – “A” has a 3/16” opening at the top, the cone tapering out to a 4-1/4” wide sealed-base.
6)   Fact – “B” has a wide 4-1/4” opening, tapering down the cone to an un-pierced solid base.
7)   Fact – “B” has a folded-downward fluid edge all around, against the glass.
8)   Fact – “A” has an absolutely flat surface, all the way across, demonstrating Pascal’s Law.
9)   Fact – “B” surface pressure is the same as “A”, because “B” must also meet Pascal’s Law.
10)   Fact – Both vessels are sealed shut at the bottom and open at the top.
11)   Fact – No change is ever visible in the two surface conditions from day to day.
12)   Fact – The surface configurations “prove”, whether the experiment is exactly level, or not.

Concluding:

A)   - Now, tell me please, why they are different, if Newton’s gravity is a universal “attractor”.
B)   - Both vessels should have a flat surface, or both should be “folded down” at the wall.
C)   - Neither has a typical (non-metal fluid) meniscus that is called “surface tension”.
D)   – Why(????) is there a difference between the two surfaces, if gravity always attracts?
E)   - If I have missed nothing here, we have the answer,which could not possibly have been deduced until after 2005. Mr. Cavendish can rest in peace among the "giants".

If you have nothing to debate, then I will be pleased to hear your explanation(s) of why my experiment must be correct.

Thanks to all who have helped me get to where my argument stands, over these few years.

Best wishes;

Fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #148 on: 11/03/2010 19:03:38 »
"Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions."
There's only one question that you ask and it's "Why(????) is there a difference between the two surfaces, if gravity always attracts?" which makes no sense whatsoever.

Also it somewhere between rude and pointless to ask us to comment on an experiment that you won't tell us about.
Why would we waste our time on the matter?
Speaking of wasting time, I will now waste some of mine by asking you to answer the questions I posed in this thread way back in '08.


Just to help you along the way "Two separate samples poured from one bottle should look the same at the “meniscus”." isn't true. If the bottles have different diameters then surface tension effects will make the mensicusses (menisci?) different.
Feel free to come back in a couple of years when you have had time to think about this some more.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Well hello BC;

You sir, once again, have missed the point.

I have been telling you for a couple of years that surface tension is just a scientific facade, made to explain what still is not being looked at. We're not talking about "wet fluids" here. Mercury is a metal. It's not water, or oil, or any thing of any organic origin, or anything like these.I have answered all the reasons why Newton's gravity isn't real in the past, and even explained why, but u just don't get it.
I'm not going through all that again. Go back over my "Model about a 1 lb. square inch cube falling from the Karman Line" again, and tell me why I'm wrong this time. The experiment explains itself, and the claims that you made about surface tension have nothing to do with metals. That phrase just gets tossed around like it had real meaning. Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.

Here's a hint:

The global ocean surface is at 14.7 psi atm pressure. Now what would the surface pressure be if the oceans of the world were made of only Mercury? How would the Mercury surface look where it touched on every beach, where a tiny wave might raise a changing meniscus, if the wind could get a "Mercury sea" moving. Now, how would the surface look at the sea level of an open-top square crater (of any depth) in a cliff by the side of the sea?

Remember: If the cone's constant atm pressure entry-rate is 100 square feet square at the top, (or 14,400 sq. ins.) and only 1 square foot square at the bottom, (or 144 sq. ins.), the direct and indirect atm top-hole surface pressures would be altered (ostensibly)by 100 to 1, because all 14,400 sq inches of 14.7 PSI each, would descend at the crater-wall angle upon the 1 foot square of Mercury surface at 14,400 times what is sitting on the water of the beach. That pressure would be 211,680 lbs., AKA 94.5 Metric tonnes.

Would you not believe that the Mercury surface at the bottom of the crater would somehow look different in the crater, than on the beach as 94.5 tonnes tries its mightiest to get by the 1 foot square of Mercury surface? It will fold down the perimeter of the surface there, or at the bottom of any "shallower crater", like you can find in my experiment.

Try it again, please.

Thanks

Fleep

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length