The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 85884 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #150 on: 11/03/2010 21:33:26 »
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.



Erm, I can see a slight problem here. The pressure at the bottom of the cone of mercury will be determined simply by the vertical distance between the bottom of the mercury and the top of the mercury. The shape of the container and the amount of mercury in it does not make the slightest difference. You'll measure exactly the same pressure that you would get with a cylindrical column of mercury of the same height.

Also, you can't measure pressure in lbs, or tonnes. You'll have to use something like pounds per square inch, Pascals, or atmospheres. There are plenty to choose from.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2010 21:59:24 by Geezer »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Well! Another geeezer like me. Welcome to the fray.

Quote
The pressure at the bottom of the cone of mercury will be determined simply by the vertical distance between the bottom of the mercury and the top of the mercury.

I distinctly stated that I was talking about the surface, not the bottom of the mercury deposit that existed in the hole. Of course the volume of mercury itself cannot be compressed by the overhead atmospheric pressure. I was speaking of the number of atm's from the top of the crater to the surface of the mercury's mass. The mass of mercury itself can weigh nothing more than the entire accumulation of all the atomic weights of which the mass is composed. As an analogy, how could a cluster of 10 marbles, each composed of 1000 single atomic weights, ever weigh a total of more than 10,000 atomic weight "units"? I'm looking at the mass as one "blob" that cannot weigh anything more than its total atomic weight. Adding atmospheric pressure to the genuine weight of any mass has never been correct. If an anvil comes in a box,you don't add the weight of the box to the weight of the anvil. Why would you add the weight of the atmosphere to the weight of the blob of mercury?
The atmospheric pressure is a separate mass. It goes all the way up to the Karman line, and under an ideal day condition, all cubic inches of each 1 square inch of atmospheric column weighs 14.7 psi on the ocean surface. That's the weight of the 62 miles high times all the 1" cubes reaching all the way down to the ocean surface at sea level. That's one individual mass. There, at the surface of the blob of mercury, another individual mass's weight determination begins. The air column is one mass and the mercury column is another mass. You cannot combine or confuse the two. The air column is just too heavy to not try and pass by the mercury mass, so it pushes the edges down, slips by it, and presses on the bottom of the "hole-bottom" beneath the mercury mass.
Are you going to acknowledge this, or stubbornly try to deny it, as everyone else seems to do?

You call youself "Geezer". I'm another one of those. It isn't all about "winning a debate". If I'm proven wrong, so be it. I will be smarter for having learned something that I previously could not see. If I lose, I lose. No problem. I'm old, and I'm going to die too sometime. No problem. If I'm right, that's OK. Maybe science will benefit,and that's a good thing for our grandchildren. We won't be here for long, if we won't take advantage of what reality is.
I'm stubborn too. I won't give up until I'm convinced by plain logical English. Now, tell me honestly please: Can you see what I'm trying to say?
Sorry for being maudlin.


Thanks for your help and company.

Fleep
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #152 on: 12/03/2010 04:12:44 »
LOL - I think I'll need a picture!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #153 on: 12/03/2010 07:15:23 »
Fleep,
of course I missed the point. You deliberately failed to include it.
You even said you were going to do so.
You said
"Introducing the (Un-named) Experiment

Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions."
 Then yo only asked one question and that didn't make sense.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2010 07:20:46 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Good morning.
I just deleted my last message to check it all and I'll be back today sometime. Just have to make sure of something before I get stomped again.

Fleep
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
First of all, this is to make a clarification that I left in my earlier message that I just deleted. I’ll clear up one thing here, and re-check the rest as I go down the page.
 
In the very first recent message, I said that the crater by the beach was coming down through a cliff beside the beach. I meant at the water’s edge, of course, but then began to speak of it being 100 feet deep. That could leave the impression that the bottom of the 100 foot hole ends at sea level. What I am actually trying to explain is a 100 foot crater that is in a rock mass that starts downward from sea level, so the pressure concentration begins exactly at sea level, and ends at 100 feet below sea level. (If I’m going to talk about higher pressures than would exist at sea level, then I have to make clear that the blob of mercury only fills the bottom of the deep hole. Let’s call it a one foot deep blob of mercury that is sitting at the bottom of a 100 foot crater, whose top is at sea level, or, “the top of the hole is even with the ocean beach surface". Calling it a “cliff” must have given a wrong impression. Sorry for the confusion. Back to what I had said, and am now working to reinstate. My deleted message said this: (possibly now with attempts at further clarifications.) End of first clarification is here.
===============================================
Deleted message said:
I distinctly stated that I was talking about the surface, not the bottom of the mercury deposit that existed in the hole. Of course the volume of mercury itself cannot be compressed by the overhead atmospheric pressure. I was speaking of the number of atm's from the top of the crater at sea level, to the surface of the mercury's mass, 100 feet below sea level.

The mass of mercury itself can weigh nothing more than the entire accumulation of all the atomic weights of which the mass is composed. As an analogy, how could a cluster of 10 marbles, each composed of 1000 single atomic weights, ever weigh a total of more than 10,000 atomic weight "units"? I'm looking at the 1 foot deep mass as one "blob" that cannot weigh anything more than its total atomic weight. Adding atmospheric pressure to the genuine weight of any mass has never been correct. If an anvil comes in a box, you don't add the weight of the box to the weight of the anvil. Why would you add the weight of the atmosphere to the weight of the blob of mercury?
The atmospheric pressure is a separate mass. It goes all the way up to the Karman line, and under an ideal day condition, all cubic inches of each 1 square inch of atmospheric column weighs 14.7 psi on the ocean surface, which is "datum", or "sea level". That's the weight of the 62 miles high times all the 1" cubes reaching all the way down to the ocean surface at sea level. That's one individual mass. Now we have to consider the hole, which starts at that sea level, remembering that at 32 feet, we reach 2 atmospheres, etc.

So,100 feet down from sea level, at the surface of the blob of mercury, another individual mass's weight determination begins. The air column is one mass and the mercury column is another mass. You cannot combine or confuse the two. The air column is just too heavy at 100 feet down, to not try and pass by the mercury mass, so it pushes the edges down, slips by it, and presses on the bottom of the "hole-bottom" beneath the mercury mass.

(Here, I deleted my entire embarrassing blurb about mutual honesty).

What follows is new elaboration.

So. The 1 foot deep mercury blob is in the 1 foot square bottom of a 100 foot tapered square hole that is 100 feet square at the top. There is no water in the hole covering the mercury, but the weight of one atmosphere is now standing at 14,400 square inches, (at sea level), and must crowd down the crater for 99 feet to touch the surface of the 1 foot of mercury that is sitting on the bottom of the hole. The actual pressure on that blob can be calculated in atm's or pounds or whatever, but suffice to say that is greatly exaggerated from the 14.7 psi (times 14,400 sq.inches) at crater-top/sea level. So. The pressure pushes down the edges of the mercury mass as it goes around it and beyond into the ground.

The difference between what would a mercury blob and an equal volume of water would look like at 100 feet down in this crater, I think you would have to agree, would be VERY different, in the very same way that it does in the experiment on my workbench).

So. Going back to my earlier message to restate the fundamental question more explicitly:

Why is there a difference between the shapes of the two surfaces, in my two experimental vessels of mercury, if gravity always attracts? Should they not both be flat, or else both be pushed down slightly at the edges? They are both, of course sitting under the influence of something widely acclaimed as Newton's Gravitational Constant. There is no consistency in what we are looking at in the two vessels. The "emperor" has no clothes, but with all due respect, Sir Isaac's incredible genius could not have known this until Einstein's Cosmological Constant opened our eyes in 2005.


Thanks for your help, chaps. Sorry for the poor earlier explanation. Now, have I left anything out that I should have explained further?

Where does this leave the discussion now?

Fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #156 on: 13/03/2010 16:29:50 »
A nice clear diagram might possibly explain what you are talking about.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #157 on: 13/03/2010 18:00:49 »
A nice clear diagram might possibly explain what you are talking about.

Yes please!
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Well, you're right about the sketch, guys, and it's only fair of you to ask for one. I've maybe been a little embarrassed to explain why I don't understand how to attach a sketch or draw one in this forum, but now, I'll figure it out, and you'll hear from me when I get it. (1 hr.?, 1 day?, longer?....?)

Thanks

Fleep
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Holy cow. It worked! And, my drawing is like a Picasso, (sort of).



Now. The pit down into the rock is 100 ft square at the opening to the sky. It has 4 tapering angles coming to a 1 foot square bottom.
The atmosphere sitting on the sea of mercury is at the left. The short beach ends at the rock "sheath" that goes all the way around the square shape of the hole. The hole is like an upside-down skinny pyramid with a 100 foot square top, and 1 foot square bottom at 100 feet down.
The 1 cubic foot of mercury sits on the bottom ands spreads out a little at the top of the mercury "block" so it's slightly bigger than a square ft at the top of the mercury mass. (Now hang on.....)

(I'm back).I went to my shop and looked at my model with the wide open top that is the resemblance of the upside down pyramid, (the hole in the rock), and the mercury is "folding down" about 3/32 of an inch all around the perimeter of the mercury. The atmosphere is hitting the rim of the glass pyramid, and concentrating pressure down the angled walls, so the unfolded center of the mercury, or about 98% of the surface, is bulged upwards just a bit, ringed by an atmospheric concentration of pressure that's trying to get past the fluid mercury, so it's pushing the perimeter downwards.

To test a pressure change by removing the atm concentation down the angled walls of the open-top vessel, I put a heavy plastic cover right over the opening, sealing it off. The "folded edges" of the mercury block instantly disappeared (because I had now made the interior of that "closed upside down pyramid" into a closed vessel, that had no angular concentration of pressure). I whipped the plastic off, and the perimeter-depression instantly re-appeared, the same as what it would do in the hole beside the beach. The model works like the deep hole would work, but the deep hole would suffer a lot more atm pressure than the small model vessel,and the top of the mercury square foot "block" in the bottom of the hole would have a much wider/deeper edge depression than my model upside-down pyramid (or "cone") would do.
==============================================================

I mentioned at the start that it was a 2-cone test. The other cone("pyramid")faces wide-mouth down. The atmosphere enters only a small 3/16" hole from the sky, so the standing pressure on the mercury is very small under a 3/16" entry port, which is only 3/16ths of 1 square inch, so the standing pressure down the small hole is only 2.76 lbs., not 14.7 lbs. The edges around the shallower but equal volume of mercury in this wider-based vessel are absolutely flat and on the same plane as the center of the shallow sample in that second cone. I dumped that mercury volume out of the small holed vessel once before, into a regular vertical-sided beaker, just to compare, and the surface of the mercury in the beaker was absolutely flat. No surprise. Without angular atm pressure concentration down angled walls, the normal 14.7 lbs of every 62 mile high column of 1 inch square "cubes", all the way up and down each column, will sit at 14.7 lbs at Datum.
===================================================================
So. Here's the point of the experiment, just in case I haven't made it clear and visible:

On a metal "sea", the weight of the atmosphere will always be 14.7 lbs., everywhere on its mercury surfaces, and all non-angled perimeter coastlines would be flat without the presence of a concentration of atm pressure.

Vessel shape differences can only demonstrate what is really happening with sea water,if we can see and measure a difference at the "meniscus" of the oceans. If it's a perfect day all around the planet, and the entire planet's real water oceans are flat, then you will only see a motion of the water beneath the moon, as it comes over your head, (if you live in England for example), and it starts to PUSH the sea towards America, Canada,and other points north and south. The approaching angle of the moon is PUSHING the tides, as it's electromagnetic connection with the barycentre of the Earth, (somehow with the help of the Magnetosphere), bends the top of the atmosphere over a large ocean area below and ahead of itself,and the higher temporarily passing pressures send the tides away for about 6 hours. The moon's path lands at the US east coast, and voila! The tides roll back to England, arriving there twelve hours after they left. The same thing happens when the moon angles off over the Pacific coastline, heading for Asia, and points North and south.

Einstein's "Cosmological Constant", (and not Newton's Gravity which is completely without "gravitons" to suggest that it might exist), is PUSHING the tides, every night.

Einstein is the theorist of the "Cosmological Constant"; perhaps only because Sir Issac had no access to the technology of 2005, when Einstein's 220 year later theory was discovered to be "dark energy".
 
There can only be one universal "Constant". Einstein's works on the principle of (physically "allowable")instant energy conversion from the invisible and universal "cloud" of negative photons, (which also give us light). Photons are always waiting everywhere out there, and around us, as a "Force", which feeds off Newton's genius, which he called, "The 3 Laws of Motion". Motion foments conversion from negativity (of the diamagnetic Constant), to positivity, and the energy goes to work; e.g. pushing the tides,or even "assisting" the delivery of flying debris, in an explosive situation. All universal motion "belongs" to this facility and gets its energy to do work from the Cosmological Constant.

(See and understand the role of photons in "The Standard Model" on Wikipedia, or other reference sites).

I must apologize if this is lengthy and hard to understand. This is not professional expertise speaking. I am only a seasoned  amateur. I would be equally happy to learn that I'm wrong about something in this theory, but I'm afraid that I just might be right. I'm just too stubborn to quit.

Thanks for your patience.

Fire away, if you must.

Fleep.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #160 on: 14/03/2010 07:20:09 »
Nice picky!

I don't think I fully understand the entire concept yet, but I did notice this:

"The atmosphere enters only a small 3/16" hole from the sky, so the standing pressure on the mercury is very small under a 3/16" entry port, which is only 3/16ths of 1 square inch, so the standing pressure down the small hole is only 2.76 lbs., not 14.7 lbs."

I believe there is a problem with that. Assuming the system is static (there is no air rushing in or out) the air pressure will still be around 14.7 lbs per square inch even if your chamber is only connected to the atmosphere by a 3/16" port, or any other size of port come to that.

The pressure within any fluid (including mercury) has a nasty habit of equalizing the pressure at a certain depth if it has any opportunity to do so.
 
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Good morning;

I didn't explain that part very well, I guess.
The standing pressure through a tiny hole doesn't mean that the vessel would not get "filled" to the full 14.7 psi at sea level. Think of the situation as if the vessel was a vacuum that "suddenly popped open" at the small hole. The total gas-admission would be 14.7 in an instant, but it would have been admitted to equalization at the diminished rate of the the opening's possibility. The "gas-rush" and equalization would take a millisecond, but certainly, the vessel has to equalize to that of the common plane.

Thanks.

Fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #162 on: 14/03/2010 12:40:18 »
I'm still not sure what you are on about.
Does this "I went to my shop and looked at my model with the wide open top that is the resemblance of the upside down pyramid, (the hole in the rock), and the mercury is "folding down" about 3/32 of an inch all around the perimeter of the mercury. The atmosphere is hitting the rim of the glass pyramid, and concentrating pressure down the angled walls, so the unfolded center of the mercury, or about 98% of the surface, is bulged upwards just a bit, ringed by an atmospheric concentration of pressure that's trying to get past the fluid mercury, so it's pushing the perimeter downwards. "
refer to the fact that mercury has a nice obvious meniscus?


If so then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmosphere.


It would still have a practically identical curved meniscus in a vacuum.

Anyone who still has an old fashioned mercury barometer can confirm this for you.
It has little or nothing to do with  gravity or the tides.

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #163 on: 14/03/2010 15:46:14 »
Rats! BC beat me to it.

I remember experiments we did in school with mercury (when it was still legal to do so) where a simple barometer was constructed from a straight glass tube sealed at one end, filled with mercury and inverted with the open end in a beaker of mercury.

The space above the column is a rather good vacuum and yet the meniscus is clearly convex, just as it is when exposed to atmospheric pressure.
 

Offline fleep

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

I'm tired. been working on this since about noon. It's 10:40 PM now. Here goes.


           The Gentle Debate – Einstein vs. Newton
Gentlemen:

Can you see that in a vertical-sided tube, there is a downturn at the outer edges, whether the vessel is a beaker, or a test tube? Also, when you have a flare-topped vessel, such as seen at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)
the  edges are prominently seen to be well “bent” downwards. Look at the picture down the page with the pound coin sitting on the mercury.

Firstly, the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the perimeter condition or with anything else but the photo-maker’s display of how something “floats” on mercury, (and a pound coin was chosen, and (thus), the coin is redundant here).

Secondly, Mercury is diamagnetic. The Force of the Cosmological Constant is diamagnetic also. There is a “current” of positivity that must constantly exist between the two negativities, because that is what the job of the Constant (Force) does: It converts negativity to positivity, like a magnet does, as it slides slowly down inside a copper tube. I won’t take time trying to figure out what it’s doing to the coin because as I said, the presence of the coin is innocuous, but also, I don’t know the coin’s metallic composition.

Thirdly: Because there is a positive energy separation between the Constant and the mercury, we know that its energy-plane exists across the entire surface, right out to the edges, in all flat directions. Now, that is important.
Conclusion: Because the energy-plane goes all the way out to the edges, and it’s a repulsive energy because it has to be, (separating the redundant coin from the mercury as it does), then when it comes to the glass perimeter, it has a “push-down advantage, and it uses that advantage to round the metal’s edges down, The “advantage” stated, is that immediately at the glass, the fractional quantity of mercury that exists right against the uncaring glass’ chemistry, just “submits” to the energy’s strength, and “allows” itself to get “bent down” quite easily. The “energy-plane separator”, (if it could be seen) would look like a flat-topped surface with a convex underside. The edge height would depend on the how “thick” the energy plane would physically have to be “made” (by conversion), to do what it does in only this particular case of “work-needing- to- be- done”.
That takes care of what’s happening in vertical-walled and flare-walled (glass) vessels, and so, the other (tiny-opening in the top) vessel should now be a breeze to figure out. (I hope).

The flared-down vessel has a surface energy plane also, because it has to, (to separate the 2 diamagnetisms, as explained above). The surface pressure inside the vessel has to be the same as outside; 14.7 psi, (assuming we are performing at Datum). Regardless of the fact that the top opening is tiny, inside the flared-down vessel, there is no vertical “access” to the mercury’s surface at the point around the perimeter where the surface meets the glass. That is because the perimeter’s flare reaches up and away from the glass wall of the vessel. No extra energy is needed to push down the edges, so the Constant only has to convert enough energy (to positivity) to make the energy-plane “flat”, looking much like the edge profile of a coin that is as big as the inside perimeter of the vessel. The two diamagnetic “quantities” are thus held apart from each other, and so, the surface is flat, all the way across, in all directions.
(Some sophisticated university lab should be able to prove this with their multi-million dollar “tool-kits” and their abundance of genius.)
==================================================================
As far as your question about the mercury barometer goes, I guess this will turn out to be another surprise if what we’ve found so far is true. I just checked Wiki, and, glass is also diamagnetic. I suspected that it had to be, because if you fill a test tube with mercury and flip it fast into the open dish of mercury, guess what happens, (as I see it).
The glass and the mercury are both diamagnetic, so, the entire surface of all the glass is repelled by all the adjacent mercury, so there is an invisible “film” of energy (converted by the Constant), slipping all the way around and up the film from the open atmosphere, down through the “pond-dish, and up into the closed end of the inverted test tube, There is no vacuum in that space you see at the top of the barometer. It’s air.
==================================================================
With all due respect to Henry Cavendish’s elaborate experiment, it now seems clear that the two lead balls of great and tiny size were being “moved” by nothing but their mutual diamagnetism, which when twisting into motion, converted negative energy into positivity between them, thus making them seeming to be “attracted” by gravity, (or some such thing I will not pursue).
===================================================================

About home-made barometers: Obviously, I now do not agree, but here is what Wiki says is going on:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

“A mercury barometer has a glass tube of at least 33 inches in height, closed at one end, with an open mercury-filled reservoir at the base. The weight of the mercury actually creates a vacuum in the top of the tube. Mercury in the tube adjusts until the weight of the mercury column balances the atmospheric force exerted on the reservoir. High atmospheric pressure places more force on the reservoir, forcing mercury higher in the column. Low pressure allows the mercury to drop to a lower level in the column by lowering the force placed on the reservoir. Since higher temperature at the instrument will reduce the density of the mercury, the scale for reading the height of the mercury is adjusted to compensate for this effect.”

Torricelli documented that the height of the mercury in a barometer changed slightly each day and concluded that this was due to the changing pressure in the atmosphere.  He wrote: "We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of elementary air, which is known by incontestable experiments to have weight".”
I obviously also agree with Wiki and Torricelli about what he wrote in the last sentence.
================================================================

If you’re surprised, think how much I will be if I’m right.

Do you believe any of this yet, or do we have to dig deeper? If you don’t want to contest this, because you might not know enough about Einstein’s Cosmological constant, and/or the Standard Model and the like, then am I finished please? I’m getting old and forgetful, really fast.

Good night. Thanks for the help, my friends.

Fleep

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #165 on: 15/03/2010 09:46:37 »
Well Fleep,
You have wasted a lot of time
If the person who took that picture had carefully cleaned the coin first it would have saved me a bit of effort but never mind.
Here are two images. One is a piece of zinc in a small bottle of mercury. The other is of a candle in a jar of water.
I have dyed the water pink to make it a bit clearer.
In the case of the mercury you can see that the meniscus is curved where it meets the glass or the zinc.
It curves up to meet the zinc and down (just like the pic you posted from WIKI) where it meets the glass of the bottle.

In the other picture things are the other way round. The water curves down where it meets the candle but up where it meets the glass.



Gravity is the same in all cases. All the materials (zinc, mercury, glass,wax, and water) are diamagnetic.

Clearly all these meniscus effects are nothing to do with paramagnetism or diamagnetism.

If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.
Of course, you would need to xray the barometer to read it- that's why they use glass.

Also, while Cavendish used mercury the experiment has been repeated many times since and with other materials.
Also it's relatively easy to measure the diamagnetism of mercury and allow for any effect it would have.
The most important point here is that the diamagnetic effect would not be an inverse square law.
Gravity gives an inverse square relation between the force and the distance (as  measured in experiments like Cavendish's) so gravity is clearly nothing to do with magnetism.

« Last Edit: 15/03/2010 10:15:09 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Good morning;

A couple of things dogging me about your answer:

Right at the start since my inglorious return on March 11, you have been missing what I regard to be my “indisputable” statements, like:

“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.”

And – “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.”

And – “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.”

So why are you introducing wax and “pink water”? They are a couple of non-sequiturs in this discussion. I’m not wasting another day trying to go back and re-prove what I re-opened with, in March 2010, that has become obvious over my long (hard-working) absence. If you’re going to disprove something, then go for my throat with real evidence please. Unproven opinion is where I started from, and I’m not going back to Sept 2007 when this thing started.

I’m dealing in Mercury, and that’s all. Sorry. No wet fluids. Soak it up.

 I will consider your statements like: “If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.” (I’ll think about what that means to my argument.)


Just think of it. I’m fighting with a proven Constant, and you are fighting with a theory that’s over 300 years old, and still remains one. Technology has GROWN. Each giant that stood on each other’s shoulders didn’t have to look as far back to see what was over the old horizons. I don’t know how tall Einstein was, or Newton either, but I’m sure one of them was a shorter giant. Understanding has nothing to do with physical stature.



 Sorry again. Now. About the Mercury and zinc. I can’t zoom or edit your picture of mercury and zinc, to clean it up. I use a jeweller’s “loop” to improve my old vision. I’ll have to test that myself so I can see what’s going on. I’ll get back. I still don’t claim that I’m absolutely spot-on, and if I hit the wall, then that’s my problem. Don’t send anything else until I address this please. It just confuses all directions.

Thanks. (Without malice).

Fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #167 on: 15/03/2010 12:38:41 »
Ho Hum
There's no such thing as a "wet" liquid.
You need to consider the thing they are wetting (or not).
Water wets glass, but not wax.
Mercury wets zinc but not glass.
Also, you say "Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.”"
Nonsense. the surface tension of mercury is about 485 mN per metre.
Perfectly real, meaningful and measurable.

In a slightly warm room gallium also is a liquid and it stick to glass like there's no tomorrow. The same is true for gallium indium alloys that are liquid at lower temperatures.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2010 12:44:38 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #168 on: 15/03/2010 16:58:36 »
I used to solder printed circuit boards by dipping them into a bath of molten solder. That was forty years ago, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me, the liquid solder (tin/lead alloy) behaved just like liquid mercury.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #169 on: 15/03/2010 22:03:48 »
Good point. Molten solder doesn't stick very well to the plastic the boards are made from, but it does wet the copper tracks.

I'm still not sure what evidence Fleep is after.
I posted a picture that shows that mercury wets zinc.
That kills his idea that " Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids."

In any event you can get a positive or negative meniscus with mercury and other liquids, even when all the materials are diamagnetic.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Hey!

Now that's what I like. A paltry alliance of 2 guys devoted to misleading semantics. just because they won't admit to not understanding something or all of the Cosmological Constant, and/or, The Standard Model. Either that, or they're just unchanging old philosophers who pretend to be "scientists" that will help a raw student (like me), who wildly seeks to find out what is truth.

If you're going to quote from Wiki, say the whole thing:

"mercury is one of six chemical elements that are liquid at or near room temperature and pressure,[1][2] the others being caesium, francium, gallium, bromine, and rubidium. Mercury is the only metal that is liquid at standard conditions for temperature and pressure."

"the others" (above) are boondoggles.

Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #171 on: 16/03/2010 02:17:14 »
Fleep:

I get it. You're saying your theory only applies at room temperature (whatever that is) and at sea level when atmospheric conditions are "just right", or is that just another red herring?

Oops! I forgot you won't be replying, so please ignore my question.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #172 on: 16/03/2010 06:57:44 »
He never answered questions reliably anyway.
I think he has gone off to sulk because he has realised that there's nothing "magic" about mercury.
Do you think he realises that there are "standard" conditions is precisely the same reason that those conditions are arbitrary.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #173 on: 16/03/2010 07:25:13 »
Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep

Hey! Come back!

Recently I was following your thread and did not want to barge in at the midst of your discussions.

In GR, gravity is a fictitious force, therefore you are right on from this perspective. Gravity in classical physics is merely a philosophical identity for subjective study of motion without addressing its causality.

I agree with your postulation for push effect of negative pressure in an electric universe and this could render the phenomenon of gravity. I am a fan of Hanes Alfven and your plasma sphere hypothesis also resonates with me. There was a group of researchers from The Electric Universe, but they were generally anti-Einstein, you are for Einstein and this makes you different from them and I agree with you on this.

I see you are trying to explain here the push effect that render the phenomenon of meniscus, generally, I think you are on the correct path, but the details would need to be ironed out, IMHO, diamagnetisms should not be mixed with the effects of gravitational force, despite they might be evolved from the same origin of cosmological constant like how you put it. I agree with your push explanation for tides and tidal force and I believe this is the reality; attraction force of gravity is as a result of an apparent paradoxical effect that is rendered in a delusion.

IMHO, motion would produce kinetic energy that could be converted into electrical energy, from this perspective where I am coming from, there is no conflict. This is where I would like to engage you in the discussion to address the causality of the electric universe or the plasma sphere cosmology.

What is your definition for field and how does it come about into existence and what is its causality?      
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Vincent!

Where have you been?

It's too late now. I've purged my latest messages, and I'm abandoning the search. If you chase me down, I'll talk to you, but I won't waste a minute more in limbo.

Thank u for the lifeline, but I think I may have drowned already.

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