The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 85880 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #25 on: 13/10/2007 17:18:57 »
"The workings of the nucleus of an atom are the smallest “balanced particles” of matter, because outside the nucleus’ exterior, the actions of electrons and their covalent trading must fit the 3rd Law."It's easy enough to see that the positive charge on the nucleus is not balanced unless it's part of an atom with the electrons carrying an equal negative charge.
In what sense is the nucleus "balanced"? Without a definition of the rather odd use of "balanced" It's impossible to say anything about it.
 
"Newton’s 3rd Law (“For every action, there is (mandatorily), an equal and opposite reaction”),  has been proven to be correct, so it is universally true, even at the atomic level.
 Covalence of course, has also been proven true."

Covalency is only stictly true for homonuclear daitomics and a few other special cases.
For the most part it's only an aproximation.

"Attraction could not emanate from the nucleus of any internally-bonded balanced atom, "
Says who?
Why can't the graviational atraction of something emanate from the nucleus?
That's where nearly all the mass is and therfore that's where most of the gravit is from.
Please stop making unsuported false statements like this.
and "which leaves only the possibility that the universally common electron interchanges, (i.e. covalence), could be responsible for any kind of attractive influence. "which is also nonsense. There could be anoyther force involved. Just because electromagnetic forces are common does not mean they are the only ones.

"If that one force was covalence between the two types,"
strict covalency only occurs between identical atoms.

And so on, the whole lot is full of mis-statements, poorly explained ideas and absurd hypothetical examples.
Unless you can tell me what,apart from gravity, moves the balls in the two experients I think you have to accept that gravity exists.

By the way you might want to look here and see what Boyles's law is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law
The bit about exerting a pressure equally in all directions is only an aproximation because it ignores the effect of gravity.
It would be simple enough to get a long pipe and fill it with air. Measurements of the pressure at the top and bottom of the pipe would give different values. This is yet another exaple of the effect of gravity. If you got a pipe as tall as emount Everest the pressure at the top would be about a third of that at the bottom.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2007 17:32:24 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #26 on: 15/10/2007 14:44:40 »
I notice that currently, based upon his post count, Bored Chemist is automatically assigned the title Hero Member. In my book he fully rates the title Hero for patiently, persistently and effectively challenging the flaky speculation that fleep has been indulging in.

Fleep, although you have now downgraded your speculation from theory to hypothesis, you still used the phrase 'only a theory', as though suggesting theories are somehow second rate. Theories are as good as it gets in science. As Ben V pointed out a theory has been well validated, probably in several independent ways, and has such a wealth of supporting observation behind it as to be accepted as all but certain. We just don't get any more solid than that in science: using a phrase like 'only a theory' mkes you sound like a creationist, or at the very least someone who doesn't understand science to well. I imagine you might want to aovid that impression.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #27 on: 15/10/2007 19:44:55 »
Thanks for those kind words. Others might say that I should just get out more.
Whatever, I just think that non science such as Fleep keeps posting should be rebutted in case it misleads someone who comes across this site. If the last word in a thread said something like the stuff Fleep peddles someone might think it was true or at least reasonable.

His lack of understanding of the word "theory" is irksome but it's his seeming lack of science- specifically the lack of the understanding of the importance of evidence- that troubles me.

I'm still waiting patiently for him to explain what moved the balls in Cavendish's experiment.

Oh, and Fleep, since you seem to have missed it before.

Covalency has nothing to do with gravity.
 Covalency is a short range force, gravity acts over greater distances.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #28 on: 23/10/2007 15:19:03 »
Hi;

Please excuse my long but necessary absence from addressing your criticisms. Thank you for all comments.

Let's try another tack...

Energy transfer - (Wikipedia)

“Because energy is strictly conserved and is also locally conserved (wherever it can be defined), it is important to remember that by definition of energy the transfer of energy between the "system" and adjacent regions is work. A familiar example is mechanical work.”

In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force.

Positive and negative signs of work indicate whether the object exerting the force is transferring energy to some other object, or receiving it.” (Remember that we are working here with mechanical work as only one example).

“A cylinder (hydraulic or pneumatic): Provides force in a linear fashion.
A motor (hydraulic or pneumatic): Provides continuous rotational motion.
A rotary actuator: Provides rotational motion of less than 360 degrees.”
======================================================================================================

Ergo  – A “force” must convey energy before work can be done. (Like pulling Cavendish’s experimental lead balls together.)

Ergo – If gravity is a “force”, then what is that “something” that provides that “force” (called gravity), and permits it to transfer an unidentified but known form of energy that will do the “work”? That is to say; if energy is being transferred to do work, (i.e. – from matter to adjacent matter), then what known physical medium is the energy-conveying avenue across the space between the two separated pieces of matter? It simply has to be electricity.

In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?

“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions.

We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?
=============================================================================================================

Magnetism - (Wikipedia)

In physics, magnetism is one of the phenomena by which materials exert attractive or repulsive forces on other materials. Some well known materials that exhibit easily detectable magnetic properties (called magnets) are nickel, iron and their alloys; however, all materials are influenced to greater or lesser degree by the presence of a magnetic field.
Magnetism also has other manifestations in physics, particularly as one of the two components of electromagnetic waves such as light.

=============================================================================================================

Physics of magnetism – (Wikipedia)

Magnetism, electricity, and special relativity

Main article: Electromagnetism

“As a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity, electricity and magnetism are understood to be fundamentally interlinked. Both magnetism without electricity, and electricity without magnetism, are inconsistent with special relativity, due to such effects as length contraction, time dilation, and the fact that the magnetic force is velocity-dependent. However, when both electricity and magnetism are taken into account, the resulting theory (electromagnetism) is fully consistent with special relativity. In particular, a phenomenon that appears purely electric to one observer may be purely magnetic to another, or more generally the relative contributions of electricity and magnetism are dependent on the frame of reference. Thus, special relativity "mixes" electricity and magnetism into a single, inseparable phenomenon called electromagnetism (analogously to how special relativity "mixes" space and time into spacetime).”

=============================================================================================================

Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math.

I wonder:

If Coulomb had “happened” before Newton, which way would science have gone? Would its direction have come from Coulomb, using the reality of the known Laws of Physics? If Newton, with his observations and math that arose only from an appearance of possibility, (that happened to match Coulomb’s (inverse square) math), had come along after Coulomb, might Newton’s theory, (existing only outside the known and proven types of energy) have been declared to be suspect in some regard? I have to believe that science would have already followed the Coulomb path.

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #29 on: 23/10/2007 20:04:36 »
"then what known physical medium is the energy-conveying avenue across the space between the two separated pieces of matter? It simply has to be electricity."
For a start the answer is gravitons or gravity waves take your pick. For a finish why say something like this "It simply has to be electricity"?

To say something like that is simply to restate your opinion that gravity doesn't exist; you cannot logically use it to prove anything about gravity.
It's like saying because onions cannot be pickled, pickled onions don't exist.

As for this "In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"Alow me to paraphrase it.

"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “electromagnetism” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “permittivity of free space(“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"
Your point is just as poor at writing off electromagnetism as it is at denying gravity.

"“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions."
Oh yes it does; and we are back to gravitons again.

"We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?"

No it's not more likely to be electricityy; were you still not listening when I explained again that for uncharged items like the sun and earth or, for that matter Cavendish's equipment, the electrostatic interactions fall off with the sixth power of the distance but gravity shows an inverse square law? This is still- since you don't seem to have paid any attention last time, due to the fact that gravity is always an atractive force.

"Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math."
OK; I read it; it's about electrostatics- the attraction between charged particles. The earth and moon don't have a charge so, while it's mathematically elegant, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and, by harping on about it you just show that you have not read or not understood what I have said.

I don't see how Coulomb could really have predated Newton. Until Newton formulated the 3 laws of mechanics the concept of a force was poorly defined.
It's possible that the law of electrostatic attraction could, in some way, have been noted before Newton's work.
I have little doubt that, had this happened, it would have made no real difference. Newton would have realised that Coulomb's law only applies to charged bodies; the earth and sun (and Cavendish's equipment) are not charged, so there must be something else.
It seems that, even though it has been poiunted out several times, you are unable to grasp this difference.




 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #30 on: 25/10/2007 15:12:26 »

Hi;

“In common usages, people often use the word “theory” to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, etc. –Wikipedia

Everybody has often used the sentence; “I have a theory about that.” It’s the same thing as the way we all use “arithmetic” and “mathematics” without regard for the tender differences in their dictionary meanings. Please stop with the red herrings! Time is wasted for nothing when we drag each other into these useless criticisms. Let’s talk hypothetically, and we can all get past the semantics that Ophiolite is so incensed about. Consider my use of the word “theory”, anywhere I use it, as though I’m talking as all us “common people do”.  I will say “hypothetically” sometimes when I feel it’s appropriate to the expression of my meaning. If the word “theory” creeps into the description of one of my hypothetical contentions, just shake it off. Semantics is a childish diversionary tactic that’s often used to extend a debate, usually for the purpose of breaking the thought train of the other party. I don’t like that stupid game.


For a start the answer is gravitons or gravity waves take your pick.
 
"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle,” etc. – Wikipedia

What? You’re using a scientific hypothesis to support your argument as if it was a real thing? How can you defend Newton's gravity with a hypothetical factor? Even he didn't use any explanation to theorize how a captive force could move around. A "graviton" is a hypothesis built over 300 years later by science itself to try to reinforce an already absolutely incompleted theory. The inability to shake the word “theory” from Newton’s Gravitational Theory” might continue to take its toll until (maybe) they will find that gravity really cannot be supported anymore.

 
For a finish why say something like this "It simply has to be electricity"?
 
Because the energy that is utilized by a force to perform work must be a real/known/proven utility that belongs to the physics family, like electromagnetic energy for example. What energy form would you suppose moves our tides, if it was suddenly proven that gravity is not real? Don’t dodge the question please. That’s a fair question for me to ask you, since, like your belief in the graviton, a scientific hypothesis, it is also funded by my hypothetical case against gravity.

To say something like that is simply to restate your opinion that gravity doesn't exist; you cannot logically use it to prove anything about gravity.

Then you can’t logically use “gravitons and gravity waves”, because they also exist only in the mind.

As for this "In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?" Allow me to paraphrase it.

"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “electromagnetism” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “permittivity of free space (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"

Your point is just as poor at writing off electromagnetism as it is at denying gravity.

You misunderstood. It is you that are writing off electromagnetism, which is one in the family of known and proven electrical physical energy forms that I contend might be fundamentally responsible for the many universal observations that are attributed to gravity. I have said all along that I think it is natural forms of electrical circuitry in space that is connecting bodies to do the work (like putting a repulsive force between the moon and the Earth) to move the tides.

“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions."


Oh yes it does; and we are back to gravitons again.
 
No. They cannot be used as factual. See above.

"We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?"

No it's not more likely to be electricityy; were you still not listening when I explained again that for uncharged items like the sun and earth or, for that matter Cavendish's equipment, the electrostatic interactions fall off with the sixth power of the distance but gravity shows an inverse square law? This is still- since you don't seem to have paid any attention last time, due to the fact that gravity is always an atractive force.

Here’s the problem. As long as you keep speaking from the perspective of math that was (and continues to be) created solely to try and explain the flaws in the inconsistencies of the gravity theory, you will never be mentally adventurous enough to even try and believe that your emperor just might be naked.
 
"Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math."

OK; I read it; it's about electrostatics- the attraction between charged particles. The earth and moon don't have a charge so, while it's mathematically elegant, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and, by harping on about it you just show that you have not read or not understood what I have said.

What we have individually said in this great hypothetical theatre we call imagination, (which is funded by the limits of understanding on either side), is irrelevant, if we do not go back to things like the actual definitions and explanations that we must derive from scientifically accurate sources. From what I’ve found in your reply, you are misunderstanding what Wiki is saying.

Again: A “force” needs an energy form as a “conveyor” of that force, for any work to be performed. A force is not an energy form, of or by itself. It is only a demand for a form of energy to make a delivery to a worksite. Newton’s “gravity” is “under house arrest” within matter, and so is only a “captive force” that cannot go out anywhere, without an “authorized vehicle” to carry it away from its home, and off to its place of work.

So, how does the moon’s (captive) “gravity force” get here, to influence our tides? What “vehicle” does it use?
(May I suggest that you read the whole article in Wikipedia about “Graviton” please?)

Thanks.
fleep
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #31 on: 26/10/2007 03:57:39 »
“In common usages, people often use the word “theory” to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, etc. –Wikipedia

Everybody has often used the sentence; “I have a theory about that.” It’s the same thing as the way we all use “arithmetic” and “mathematics” without regard for the tender differences in their dictionary meanings. Please stop with the red herrings! Time is wasted for nothing when we drag each other into these useless criticisms. Let’s talk hypothetically, and we can all get past the semantics that Ophiolite is so incensed about. Consider my use of the word “theory”, anywhere I use it, as though I’m talking as all us “common people do”.  I will say “hypothetically” sometimes when I feel it’s appropriate to the expression of my meaning. If the word “theory” creeps into the description of one of my hypothetical contentions, just shake it off. Semantics is a childish diversionary tactic that’s often used to extend a debate, usually for the purpose of breaking the thought train of the other party. I don’t like that stupid game.
This is a science forum. We are discussing scientific topics. It is appropriate to use the language of science in such a context. In such a context common usageis simply wrong. Your persistent use of it does not serve to educate those interested in science, but not well versed in it, in the correct use of terms. I shall continue to argue for proper use of terms and, frankly, I shall demand of those posters who should know better.
Semantics - lets see.. that has to do with meaning. You don't think meaning is important? If you consider using words in the correct way in the correct context to be 'a childish diversionary tactic', good luck to you. Loose usage of terms is acceptable in casual conversation. It is out of place in a serious scientific discussion. Perhaps you are not interested in participating in one of those. Having read your whimsical rebuttal of Bored Chemist's commentary I suspect that is the case.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #32 on: 27/10/2007 16:35:35 »
Hi:

To "Bored Chemist" - A consideration please.

A pride in the status quo and the tremendous contributions of science to modern technology is a noble thing. I just don't want you or anyone else getting an impression, (unless you and others already have), that I'm genuinely trying to demean the accomplishments of days and people gone by. Why would I waste my old age on this obsession that I can barely stand, in trying to alienate other people? I'm old. I might die soon. I have other personal family interests and hobbies and duties that go begging on account of this whole mess. I want out, as quickly as possible, and I can't just let it go for some reason, until somebody else kills any possibility of progress with a solid and scientifically logical answer to the question that I first (unfortunately)  overly-explained in my last message to you. Based on the Wikipedia-based definitions, of "force", energy", and "work", that question was:

"How does the moon’s (captive) “gravity force” get (conveyed) here, to influence (work) our tides? What (non-hypothetical) “vehicle” does it use?"

There are important things that can possibly be answered if somebody even thought about taking the question seriously. How about "space sickness", for one example?

See: http://quest.nasa.gov/neuron/background/sls.html

The foregoing site seems to accentuate the study of space sickness effects caused by “microgravity”. It would also seem to be sensible to investigate ways in which our neurological systems might be short-circuiting by the ship’s passage through areas such as the Van Allen Belts, ring currents and/or the magnetosphere. If these are not already being done, perhaps such studies should be tried, completely separated from any “gravitational considerations”. Our bodies are run by electricity, so who knows what we might learn?

The Van Allen Belts are known to be harmful to human organisms and even satellites.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Impact_on_space_travel

Nothing else to say right now. Thanks for your help BC, and for everyone else's past contributions.

fleep


 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #33 on: 03/11/2007 19:00:16 »
HEY! Where is everybody?

There are standing questions here that no one is tackling.

To summarize:

A ‘force’ transfers ‘work’, using ‘energy’.
A ‘transfer’ is the conveyance of that work to a new owner/destination.
To ‘convey’, is to transport, e.g. – by land, or sea, or outer space.
A ‘conveyance’, is a ‘vehicle’, (energy), which is employed to fulfill a ‘force-transfer’.
To employ energy to make a force-transfer from one place to another is to transfer ‘work’.

Newton’s (theory of) gravitation is (theoretically) at work on the moon, where it is a local “force”. That local “force” is also (theoretically) performing work on the Earth’s tides. (This would be a 238,000 mile distant ‘force-transfer’, intended to utilize the moon’s transferred gravity-force to perform work on the Earth.)

I make these points because there is no factually-proven (non-hypothetical) scientific evidence that any ‘force’ can perform ‘distant ‘work’ without utilizing one of the known and commonly recognized forms of ‘energy’ as a ‘transfer vehicle’. After all, a ‘graviton’ is nothing but a ‘hypothetical, mass-less, elementary particle’, and “gravity waves’ have neither been actually found nor measured, according to Wikipedia. These remain only a hypothesis within Newton’s Theory of Gravitation.

Cavendish seemed to be satisfying the “verification” of gravity’s “existence” for the science community, that matter does attract other matter, but even his experiment does not answer the valid questions. But, as Wikipedia says, “All materials are influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the presence of a magnetic field.” Lead balls, as Cavendish used in his experiment, must also fall within the truth of this statement. Without a transfer of force between the lead balls by some existing known form of energy (like electromagnetism), the lead balls could not have moved at all.

So I must ask these questions, which must of course be confined to the known and proven energy forms:

1)   Which one of the real (non-hypothetical) energy forms is the force-conveying ‘vehicle’ of gravity, over any distance?
2)   If no existing energy transfers a local ‘force’ (“gravity”), no distant work can be done without a force-transfer? Right?
3)   If no existing energy transfers any local ‘force’, gravity can be neither a local nor a universal phenomenon? Right?
4)   Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*
5)   If all matter is influenced by an electromagnetic field, is it not likely that universal interactions are electromagnetic?

* (Question 4 arises from one dictionary definition of the word "weight"; i.e. - "gravity as a property of bodies".)

Is anyone out there, who will try to come forward with completely plausible answers?

Why are we all playing in this forum? Is it simply to insist that we are right in everything that we believe, or are we here to learn something? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But if any of my questions just pose a dilemma for your ability to answer, then how about just sharing that fact with the forum.  I don't know the answers to them either, or I wouldn't be asking.


References -  (Wikipedia)

Force, Energy, Work, Magnetism, and Physics of magnetism – (Main article: Electromagnetism)

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #34 on: 04/11/2007 13:18:13 »
Fleep
Do you understand that something that falls as the sixth power of the distance (like the electrostatic force between two uncharged bodies) is not, and can not be, the same as something that falls as the square of the distance (like the atraction observed between massive objects noted by Cavendish and many since)?


Really, if you can't answer that, it's the end of the debate.

Thay are plainly different.
Why do you keep insisting that the force that holds me in my chair is anything to do with electricity when experimentally it is known not to be?
As for your complaint that there's no direct evidence for gravitons perhaps I should point out I have never seen a photon.

It's a pity that you didn't seem to understand the point I tried to make earlier.
You made some claim that this
"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?" "
In some way demonstrated that gravity didn't exist.

All I did was swap the words about and use exactly the same argument to prove that electricity doesn't exist.
Of course the argument doesn't show that electricity doesn't exist; it's a lousy argument.
It's just as lousy at showing that gravity doesn't exist.


"Is anyone out there, who will try to come forward with completely plausible answers?"

Yes but you will not listen to them because you can not or will not accept that gravity is real.
The answer is that gravity atracts all things towards each other with a force proportional to their masses and to the reciprocal of the square of the distance between them. This force is carried by gravity waves or gravitons in just the same way that the electromagnetic force is carried by photons. Because gravity is something like 34 orders of magnitude weaker than the em force these individual gravitons or gravity waves are very difficult to observe.

" Without a transfer of force between the lead balls by some existing known form of energy (like electromagnetism), the lead balls could not have moved at all."
Yes, that force is called gravity. Why can't you accept this?

"I make these points because there is no factually-proven (non-hypothetical) scientific evidence that any ‘force’ can perform ‘distant ‘work’ without utilizing one of the known and commonly recognized forms of ‘energy’ as a ‘transfer vehicle’"
One of the recognised forms of energy is gravitational potential energy. It's how they store energy in a holowed out Welsh mountain by pumping water up it when electricity is cheap and letting it out (through a turbine) when theres a peak in demand.
The fact that you don't recognise gravity is your problem. It still works perfectly well.


This "Which one of the real (non-hypothetical) energy forms is the force-conveying ‘vehicle’ of gravity, over any distance?" is a meaningless question.
The answer is that, whatever form the carrier of this force may take we find it helpful to give it a name. That name is the graviton.
We might not know a lot about the properties of the graviton but we sure as hell know it exists because it's what holds us in our chairs and keeps the moon in orbit. There's no sensible question that something keeps the orbits sorted out and there's no way (as I have pointed out before and which you seem to glibly ignore) that it's electromagnetic.

"If no existing energy transfers a local ‘force’ (“gravity”), no distant work can be done without a force-transfer? Right?"
Yes, but since there is a means to transfer the energy-0 the graviton (whatever it might be) then there's no problem with transfering a force and hence doing work.
Again , because we know that work is done- for eample there are tidal power stations, we know that there must be some agent that carries the energy; once again we call it the graviton. and once again we are certain it exists for the very reason you have give. If it didn't then the energy couldn't be transfered.

That means that this "If no existing energy transfers any local ‘force’, gravity can be neither a local nor a universal phenomenon? Right?"
doesn't mean anything because we know that there is a means of transfering the energy- it's called gravity (as it happens it's universal)

"Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*"
OK for a start most of the particles, or even planets and stars in the universe have practically no weight. Weight is the extent to which the earth's gravity attracts them.
If you meant is it reasonable to say that the mass of something is sum of the masses of its component parts then yes, I think it is reasonable.
Mass is some sort of measure of "how much stuff there is" It seems fair enough to me that the amount of stuff in a couple of apples is the ammount of stuff in 1 apple added to the ammount of stuff in the second apple.
Whether you like it or not there is the observed fact that the 2 apples atract each other in the way I spcified earlier. I can't see how it would be reasonable not to include this attractiveness effect.

"If all matter is influenced by an electromagnetic field, is it not likely that universal interactions are electromagnetic?"
No it's not because (for the umpteenth time) we know how electicity causes atraction and, unless the objecta are carrying a huge charge then it simply doesn't explain the observations. Also we know that the objects are not charged.

Now, never mind anything else. Until you understand that six isn't the same as 2 there's no point in carrying this on any further.
 

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 #35 on: 05/11/2007 23:38:01 »
Fleep. your ideas like many others like you are based on some fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics reinforced by simple thought experiments based on familiar earth based engineering.  The "force" of gravity requires no continuous source of energy to maintain it.  because that does not in itself dissipate energy. It is only bodies moving in a gravitational field that can convert the potential energy of their own mass into kinetic energy by accelerating due to the "force" associated with the distorted space time.  If you must have an energy source for the creation of the field, you could say it comes from the potential energy given up by the assembly of sufficient atoms in a small space to distort the fabric of space time and create the gravitational field but  in doing so they liberate kinetic energy which is radiated away in the form of heat as happens in stars.  The fact that some stars can generate some more energy by fusing the nuclei of atoms just helps the stars shine for longer.  A universe in which nuclear fusion cannot happen would still contain stars!
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #36 on: 07/11/2007 22:29:09 »
Hi;

Thanks for the comments. This answer is to BC and Soul Surfer.

(BC said):
Do you understand that something that falls as the sixth power of the distance (like the electrostatic force between two uncharged bodies) is not, and can not be, the same as something that falls as the square of the distance (like the attraction observed between massive objects noted by Cavendish and many since)? Really, if you can't answer that, it's the end of the debate. Thay are plainly different.

Of course I do, but if gravity does not produce identical effects at every scale level of size and/or mass, then it cannot be “universal”.

You cannot reasonably expect me to compare the results between the Newtonian and Coulomb math. “The gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”. The math of Coulomb could make no sensible claim if it included anything about the “proportionality to the product of their masses”. Of these two similar mathematical formulae, if only one is constructed with an extra theoretical factor within it, which causes the gravity equation to arrive at a different answer, then they are not open to valid comparison.
 
You continue to insist that (merely hypothetical) ‘gravitons’ and/or ‘gravity waves’ are a true and actual form of known Physical Laws by which a force is conveyed to where its work is done. They are hypothetical things only! Electricity, like all the other energy forms of known Physics, works the same across the entire universe, and that’s why I’m pushing it.

The big loser is something that science calls “potential energy”. Anything that has the ability or the possibility of being or doing something else (but doesn’t ever do it), is not that “something else”, and might never be. The universe has the potential energy contained within it, to blow itself to smithereens, but unless it happens, nothing has been “converted” to the physical energy form(s) that would accomplish it. Any conversion from potential has to mean that a known physical form of energy, like electricity, light, chemical, or even nuclear energy becomes the conveyor to the “jobsite”. Those are not my rules. “In physics, work is the amount of energy transferred by a force.” – (says Wikipedia). The transferring vehicle has to be one of the known forms of energy. You can't go making up a new theoretical form of energy.
 
So, I continue to insist that all of the math, plus these hypothetical things like ‘gravitons’/’gravity waves’, and even lame conveniences like “potential energy” have been invented to tailor-make “bridges” between the inexplicable voids in the whole theory of gravitation. Math can be constructed to do anything science needs it to do. The math proves nothing, except how intelligently clever some mathematicians can be in fabricating “explanations” for the unanswerable anomalies that constantly pop up in Newton’s Gravitation Theory.

Wikipedia says: Electrical resistivity (also known as specific electrical resistance) is a measure of how strongly a material opposes the flow of electric current. A low resistivity indicates a material that readily allows the movement of electrical charge.

If we go back to Cavendish’s experiment, and the fact that he used lead, which has a characteristic electrical resistivity at a “standardized” temperature of 20 deg. C., (whose coefficient changes with temperature change), and the fact that all other metals he could have used would have produced a different measurement of distance between the variety of ball materials, perhaps we should be asking questions about the veracity of his method. Of course now, it will be pointed out that science's electric resistivity tables were produced in a situation where an electrical current was being applied to the materials, and is thus irrelevant, since no charge was physically applied by Cavendish. Not so, in my opinion.

Every elemental combination produces a different covalent radius, which also means that every different element used to make a set of test-balls for a “Cavendish experiment” should produce a different effect in the distance between the test-balls. If gravity was a constant non-discriminating force, the measurements should be the same for all the elements, but the electrical influence of covalence must surely make the space between the test-balls of every element (or any elemental mix) measure differently. Which “attractiveness” is only a convenience feature? If I had to choose between “gravitation” and valence, I would not select valence as the “convenience”, because valence is a real, and living thing.

If gravity really is a force, it could not discriminate between materials, or we could not apply it as a single rule by adding it as a ‘property’ to the atomic weights of masses, thus unequally affecting the various sum totals of the atomic weights in different masses. (See below**). Valence is, after all, an electrical function, and covalent radii will differ from one to another, revealing differences of distance between sets of test-balls made of different materials.

Electrical resistivity and valence are obviously the makers of a multiplex of diversities that make every two or more materials react differently when considered in proximities to each other. There can be no ‘gravitational constancy’, since there cannot possibly be a universally identical “state of valence” in every material composition. What is thought to be “gravity” would seem to actually be electricity at work. The electrons are doing the electrical work, all the way from each individual atom, out to the exposed electrical surface effect that stands in proximity to its material ‘neighbour(s)’, (and/or, positive or negative charges that an object may casually encounter, as in spatial "falling situations").

** (I said in my last message): "Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*"


(BC said): If you meant is it reasonable to say that the mass of something is the sum of the masses of its component parts then yes, I think it is reasonable.
 
I then have to read your answer as saying that you think it is reasonable to enhance the mass’s actual sum (scalable) components by adding a “gravitation factor”. I obviously disagree, because to apply anything, even a  “gravitational influence” as a “property” to each and every atom in the mass, would be to increase the bare numerical sum of all the component atoms that form that mass. An enhanced sum of the atomic components would not be a true scaling/equivalent representation of that mass. By the addition of a theoretical “property” (called “gravity”) to a mass the size of Jupiter for example, the “scaling weight” of that planet, (if we could actually weigh it), becomes significantly skewed on the plus side. Thus, the inclusion of gravity as a “property” of the word “weight”, has made the work of calculating the “true sum total atomic weight” of anything in the universe an almost impossible job, because science can always fall back on the dictionary meaning of the word “weight” itself, which, as said, unfairly includes gravity as a “property”, and thus, as a theoretical component of “weight” itself.

(BC said):  Mass is some sort of measure of "how much stuff there is" It seems fair enough to me that the amount of stuff in a couple of apples is the amount of stuff in 1 apple added to the amount of stuff in the second apple. Whether you like it or not there is the observed fact that the 2 apples attract each other in the way I specified earlier. I can't see how it would be reasonable not to include this attractiveness effect.

I like apples too. Why would apples not like apples, as lead balls like other lead balls, etc.? I wonder what would have happened if Cavendish used an apple and a lead ball(?)
Nothing is attracted by gravity, in my opinion. Things fall identically through space and differently through atmospheres. When things encounter charges, they are affected in different ways, depending on either the negativity or the positivity of the charge(s), and the elemental composition of the things. When things get captured by natural phenomena like ring currents, they might get tied into orbits, or even caused to change direction. They might be attracted, or they might be repulsed. Game over. Nothing called “gravity” is needed at all.

I’m not trying to get philosophical here, but no logical mind can construct a single valid syllogism that includes both theory and truth, and end up proving that theory equals truth. The answer would consistently be “False”. The word “gravity” belongs neither in the definition of the word “weight”, nor in the mathematics that make gravity seem real, and yet the world ignores this unfair dichotomy that effectively locks out any simple means to attack the dictionary definition of the word “weight”. That divisive mating of truth and theory defends the right of science to justify (as logical), all of their (theoretical) mathematics and hypothetical component factors that relate to the theory of gravitation.

I’m not trying to be difficult. The number of people who believe that Newton was entirely wrong about gravity is legion. They’re all over the net and around the world. Why do you suppose people keep challenging his otherwise spotless genius? Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes, they are whoppers.

I know of course, that I have probably firmly entrenched myself as a member of the “crackpot fringe”, particularly in the eyes of those who only construct rebukes, even as they are reading and rejecting, word after word, all things that do not match their logical defenses. If I didn’t really care about that effect, it would never have occurred to me to mention it, so I’m obviously not seeking a tirade of acknowledgements that have determined it to be pie-throwing time. Determination in the face of adversity is (sadly) my style, and I hope the real thinking minds can rise above their immediate inclinations, and keep this most difficult debate going onwards in a noble and gentile fashion. I have great respect for the homeland of education, courtesy, and inspiration that Britain has historically shown itself to be. My efforts in North American forums have met with almost no appreciable evidence of such traits, but I won’t express the reasons why I have come to feel this way. I have to live here.

P.S – All Canadians are not this stubborn


Thanks.

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 #37 on: 08/11/2007 08:38:17 »
Fleep you are neglecting the work of Eotvos on gravity.  He vastly refined Cavendish's seminal experiment and measured the gravitational attraction between balls of many different materials with and without a vast range other materials between them to show that the gravitational effect of materials is totally independant of the material and only dependant on the mass and is independant of the interposition of any sort of screening material.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #38 on: 08/11/2007 19:55:32 »
A few points
First
"You cannot reasonably expect me to compare the results between the Newtonian and Coulomb math. “The gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”. The math of Coulomb could make no sensible claim if it included anything about the “proportionality to the product of their masses”. Of these two similar mathematical formulae, if only one is constructed with an extra theoretical factor within it, which causes the gravity equation to arrive at a different answer, then they are not open to valid comparison."

The two equations are
Coulomb
F=E0  (Q1. Q2) /R^2
and
Newton
F=G (M1. M2) /R^2

Both have exactly the same form; there's just as much a fudge factor in one as there is in the other. If one is reasonabl;e then so is the other.

Secondly
The Coulomb formula above has no relevance whatsoever because in things like tides we are not talking about charged bodies.

Thirdly
As far as I can see all the stuff you have written is nonsense.
For example "I obviously disagree, because to apply anything, even a  “gravitational influence” as a “property” to each and every atom in the mass, would be to increase the bare numerical sum of all the component atoms that form that mass. "
Balls!
Before I was born I held no ownership over anything.
Now I own a house. I have threfore added to each atom of that house the property of "belonging to me". Plainly this doesn't affect the atome themselves.
Anyway I'm not adding the propert "gravitational attraction" to mass; they are two sapects of the same thing.


"The number of people who believe that Newton was entirely wrong about gravity is legion. They’re all over the net and around the world."
A million lemmings cant be wrong.

It doesn't matter how many of them there are. Until they can tell me what moved the balls in Cavendish's experiment they cannot be taken seriously and nor can you.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #39 on: 10/11/2007 16:18:58 »
Hi guys;

Newton's law of universal gravitation:

F = G m1m2/r2

where F is the force that mass one and mass two exert on each other, m1 and m2 are their respective masses, r is the distance between their centers of mass, and G is the constant of proportionality that is called the Gravitational Constant.

So, this is an “attractive force” that is allegedly “exerted” between two masses, without any explanation of how a “force” can be a form of energy. This “exertion” (by definition), defies even the scientific definition of "energy" that includes a mandatory prerequisite for “work” to be done, which is a transference of force by any one of the known physical energy facilities.

Coulomb’s Law says:

The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges.

The Scalar form of the equation shown is not exactly what you stated it to be, but we will ignore that you omitted the mass difference fraction in your equation , and point out that since we must know the direction of the ring current , the full vector form of the equation must be used.  (Look it up please. It’s easier than trying to recreate all the equation symbols here.)

See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law   - (Scalar form)


It says: If one does not require the specific direction of the force, (which we must know, if a ring charge is operating between the Earth and the moon), then the simplified, scalar, version of Coulomb's law will suffice. A positive force implies a repulsive interaction, while a negative force implies an attractive interaction.

But, we must use the Vector form to illustrate my hypothesis, so:

See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law   - (Vector form)

(Gravity implies an attractive force, but my contention is that a positive electromagnetic ring current is operating between two point charges in space between the Earth and the moon. It connects to the two bodies at two undiscovered points of reach of our respective electromagnetics.  Our magnetosphere is likely one of the two ends of the ring current. The point charge in space on the moon end of the ring current repulses the magnetic positivity of the moon, and the point charge on the Earth end repulses the magnetic positivity of the Earth. At the Earth end, the repulsion creates a burden on our atmosphere, which pushes down the surface of the ocean as the moon passes overhead from East to West.)

It seems strange, that if the tides are governed by the “gravitational pull of the moon,” and since the distance between the Moon and the Earth is very slightly increasing over time, that a force which is supposed to “attract”, is separating the two bodies. It sounds more to me like a form of real energy is   keeping them separated, and is responsible for the widening gap between them.  (It makes me think again about how Epimetheus and Janus are a mere 50 km apart when they trade orbits, yet they never collide. I will not remind you what your comment was when I once brought that up before.)

I was attempting to make a list of all the theoretical variations and anomalies that can be found in reference materials about the problems with gravity, but the task is much too daunting.

How can we have a “gravitational constant” if there is no gravity in the vacuum of space? If gravity is a “constant” force, how can we have “microgravity” and “supergravity”? Where is all this “dark matter” that might have helped to support the case of gravity? How can this pretender exist in the presence of genuine forms of energy that actually deliver work from a parent force of physically known and accepted origins? Stuff can fall through an atmosphere, or it can fall differently through a vacuum, all without the "benefit" of gravity.

 If gravity just sits there as a dictionary version of “force”, and has to go to a distant dictionary version of “work, then what form of a dictionary version of “energy” will deliver it? Science plays fast and loose with the apparently multi-talented abilities of “potential energy”, but if it’s only potential, then it’s nothing at all. Science also has bastardized “force” as if it was itself a form of energy, and even as “work” that is actually being done, without a real energy even being involved. They even call it a “property”  of matter. An imaginary “gravity” just sits there, inside every particle of matter, skewing its genuine “weight”, by supplementing the sum total of every mass’s (bare) atomic “weights”.

You keep telling me to prove that something other than gravity makes the Cavendish experiment an apparent success, and I keep giving you valid possibilities that you expect me to creatively explain to confirm my hypothesis. Science hasn’t even completed the final studies of the properties of atoms, so even if I ever could, I wouldn’t bother, because it would fall on deaf ears everywhere.  Science might never try to rewind the clock and go about dismantling everything that has been fabricated for convenience sake only, over the last 300 odd years.

As long as it takes for science to absolutely explain the role the role of Negative Pressure, a proven universal phenomenon discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, then I have to go with possibilities other than a fairy tale called “gravity”.

Of course, all of this will be labelled “nonsense” as well, because this lazy society has a sort of dead gravity of its own. It’s called, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The old term “laissez-faire” appears to have widened to accept even scientific proclivities.

P.S. – Not really related, but see the neat pictures numbered 1, 2, 3, at:

  http://www.designboom.com/contest/view.php?contest_pk=7&item_pk=3460&p=2

Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #40 on: 10/11/2007 17:13:49 »
What moved the balls?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #41 on: 10/11/2007 23:33:32 »
Hi BC;

What moved the balls?

hmmm.... Was it a kick in the ...? How the heck do I know? You and science don't really know. You're all working off an old theory that doesn't have any believable evidence either. Think about the questions that I posed and maybe you will come to a realization that gravity just isn't needed or real.

I always appreciate your continuing negativity, because it forces me to go further afield to make gravity look stupid.

Thank you so much my friend.

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 #42 on: 11/11/2007 10:52:46 »
You're talking total unscientific rubbish fleep what you say is innacurate and does not work.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #43 on: 11/11/2007 12:36:24 »
Fleep, there is plenty of evidence- from the dropped baby's rattle success of the space exporation. Some of the clearest evidence comes from things like Cavendish's experiment.
The problem is not a lack of evidence; the problem is your inability to accept what most people see as obvious.
The fact is that the balls move. We call that effect gravity. We make theories about it such as it having an inverse square law. We do experiments and verify that law.
What's to debate? There's no question it's real.
Unless and until you can come up with a plausible answer to my question in my last post then you are not helping anyone, not even yourself. All you are doing is wasting time and bandwidth.
Incidentally , the reason we can have supergravity and microgravity is because the gravity depends on how much mass is nearby. It's not difficult so I wonder if you really can't understand it or if you are trolling. I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's the latter.
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #44 on: 12/11/2007 02:52:56 »
I am not at all versed in the physics of gravity, but was it not an exact understanding of the physics of gravity, as discovered and elucidated by Newton, that determined precisely the position that was necessary to put satellites into orbit around the earth and other planets. If these principles of physics were not true, I am sure scientist would have discounted them years ago, and satellites would have drifted into space, or came plunging into the earth. I am not aware of any reputable scientist that has denied the existence of gravity. Certainly gravity exist. Why, because we can calculate and predict its behavior. Therefore, the real question being posed is not whether gravity exist or not, but what is its true nature and characteristics. This is my "unqualified" opinion.     
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #45 on: 12/11/2007 19:38:56 »
Thanks John,
We told Fleep about satelites in this thread and an earlier one (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7375.0)
Perhaps he will listen this time.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #46 on: 12/11/2007 20:41:16 »
Hi guys;

I again must restate that there is no point trying to determine the origin of any actual energy that moved the lead balls in Cavendish's experiment, if the subatomic particle role questions have not all been answered by science. Their explanation is incomplete, and mine can not be completed either, until they have nailed the atom all the way down to its tiniest component, and its role. No one can satisfy your demand, before then.

Incidentally, none of you have identified a single site where I could read exactly what form of energy conveyed the "force" in either of the (Cavendish OR Eotvos) balls to perform the work in the other.

So, here we go again...

Wiki -
"Absolute negative pressures occur in some theories in physics. See dark energy, equation of state (cosmology) and negative mass."

Wiki - (Positive) "pressure is defined in terms of a force applied over an area. In many physics problems we consider idealised situations; typically a single, positive ("pushing") force acting on a surface."

So, what do we have here?
 
After their earliest comments of excitement, the Supernova Legacy Team’s leader, Dr. Ray Carlberg and the rest of the team have been become extremely careful not to expand on their initial confirmed discovery of “negative pressure/dark energy” that was announced in November 2005. They are supposed to be publishing a hopefully full report of confirmation by sometime in 2008.


“The current paper is based on about one-tenth of the imaging data that will be obtained by the end of the survey. Future results are expected to double or even triple the precision of these findings and conclusively solve several remaining mysteries about the nature of dark energy.”

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/051122-1839.asp

Though we must wait for the team’s report until 2008, I will jump the gun and explain that I am offering a hypothesis to explain how gravity is either not real, or can be explained in another way, using (in part), the above team’s confirmation of Einstein’s Cosmological Constant/ negative Pressure.

I will use a small model with which to begin, so we can imagine a universe that is a “cubic mile” in size, and in which all matter within it is scaled to the necessary sizes that will make everything relevant, if size needs to be a consideration at all. Mass will not be relevant here, since everything that exists will simply be another “object” that exists in the model.

Now we will open all the sides of the “box” and “flatten” our universe in such a way that everything that was “in the box” can still be seen on our flat “sheet”, in the style of a Mercator projection.  We will construct a grid pattern on the sheet for convenience sake, and the grid pattern in which our own galaxy is contained will then be projected forward to be a single “worksheet” of one square mile in size and adjusted scale, remembering of course, that this one sheet is also representative of the workings of the entire universe behind it. All this scaling down only brings us to thinking in small scale since the whole universe is too daunting to even imagine.

Each square of the grid of our worksheet is filled with negative pressure. All matter within the grid squares exists upon the universal “backdrop” of negative pressure, because it is a constant. It is the basis of the Cosmological Constant that Einstein theorized, and which the above team confirmed in November 2005. It is the long-theorized “dark energy” that science has been seeking and a fundamental prerequisite for the existence of a static universe.

The negative pressure is a negative energy, which was formerly believed to be an impossible state in which energy could exist. The atoms of the 94 natural elements are positively charged. (We will not need to specifically segregate different forms of atom types such as isotopes, since they are known to exist, but their existence is not needed for reference in this model.)


Wiki – “Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamical equilibrium to contract.”

(Ergo – the inclusion of “gravity”, a theoretical “force”, interfered with Einstein’s mathematical effort to formulate general relativity. He had to find something that would allow a bogus factor (gravity) to fit in his equations, so he theorized his Cosmological Constant, which now has been proven to be a real form of what was first called (dark) energy.

This constant backdrop/platform on which all matter exists and is undeniably able to perform any of its natural functions, must also support the existence of anti-matter, which it obviously permits, by using a totally different set of “rules” than matter does.


Wiki -Naturally occurring production (of antimatter)

“In particle physics and quantum chemistry, it extends the concept of the antiparticle to matter, whereby antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example an anti-electron, (a ‘positron’, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an anti-hydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing of matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing of antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The particles resulting from matter-antimatter annihilation are endowed with energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original matter-antimatter pair, which is often quite large.

There is considerable speculation in science as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

(See my other theory in this forum: “Planets are made in black holes”.)

Antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the solar system) produce minute quantities of antimatter in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. It may similarly be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur (principally the interaction of relativistic jets with the interstellar medium). The presence of the resulting antimatter is detectable by the gamma rays produced when it annihilates with nearby matter. (Relativistic jets can develop around the accretion disks of neutron stars and stellar black holes.")

Questions – If matter exists within a “force”, which is a “gravitational constant”, then what "constant" governs the behaviour of antimatter? If gravity really is a “property” of matter, what “force” is the anti-gravitational constant”? Where is antimatter's 'anti-force'? Dark energy (negative pressure) can’t be a “second-layer constant”, because the gravity is only a “force”, but Negative Pressure is an ‘energy”, capable of conveying “potential energy” to its work-sites. Only one of the two is confirmed to be a constant, and that one is not “gravity”, (OR 'anti-gravity', for the case of antimatter).

How can one state of matter contain a theoretical property, particularly as a property of (the word) "weight", if its antithesis (antimatter) has none of its own, and cannot subscribe to an opposite rule, because that opposite rule does not exist? If matter and antimatter mutually destroy one another and become energy, then what kind of energy has been formed? It could be called “nuclear” only if just matter is involved.


Wiki says, as above; “The particles resulting from matter-antimatter annihilation are endowed with energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original matter-antimatter pair, which is often quite large.

“Wiki says; “The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity.”

Why would “gravity-laden masses” beside an object’s path have no attractive speed-reducing effects at all?

So the matter collided with the antimatter, and performed that ‘work’, and the potential energy was released, instigating an ‘acceleration’ to move the high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle-antiparticle pairs. The ‘work’ of that collision was the creation of a kinetic energy. The ‘force’ of the collision is now being conveyed as a product (by that kinetic energy) until the photons or other particle-antiparticle pairs hit something else, where more ‘work’ gets performed. If they hit nothing, they just keep falling continually in a straight line through the void, at the originally initiated speed of acceleration, and without another collision, the energy conveying the “product” is not “gradually used up”.

Now if any ‘gravitational attraction’ existed anywhere close to the falling-path of the ‘products’ of the first collision, that straight line should be influenced by  some directional change(s), even if it happens over a long period of time, but it reportedly does not. Where is the (any) nearby ‘gravity’? Is it sleeping, or is there no gravity at all?

Objects that fall in straight lines through space are not being ‘attracted’ to anything at all. If they change direction, it is solely because of (e.g.), a chance encounter with some other ‘local” fixed energy field, such as a ring current that is conveying energy from one point charge to another, as a regular motion of its static and unchanging job. That is an intimidating force. Such a chance encounter is a real reason why meteors are pushed into and invade our atmosphere, unless their approach angle is too low-pitched and they just seem to “bounce off” our atmosphere. Their direction did change, but ‘gravity’ did not attract it to us at all, because there appears to be no logical reason to me, why gravity should even be suspected to exist.


See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

If it were possible to see the entire universe as a “Constant Grid”, universal expansion might be simpler to calculate and understand. Knowing that we have a constant platform (of negative pressure) on which to construct a virtual grid of any practical size, perhaps many super-computers could be assigned the task of producing such answers. We know that things are happening that defy (what else), the Law of Gravitation for example, yet we have no explanation for all of them. When any are noted, someone sets about creating a new equation, if it can be done, as with the Earth’s tides, or else we just make a theory-based excuse and let it go, like we do with Janus and Epimetheus.

See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn

“Saturn has an intrinsic magnetic field that has a simple, symmetric shape—a magnetic dipole. Its strength at the equator—0.2 Gauss—is approximately one twentieth than that of the field around Jupiter and slightly weaker than Earth's magnetic field. As a result the cronian magnetosphere is much smaller than jovian and extends slightly beyond the orbit of Titan. Most probably, the magnetic field is generated similarly to that of Jupiter—by currents in the metallic-hydrogen layer, which is called a metallic-hydrogen dynamo. Similarly to those of other planets, this magnetosphere is efficient at deflecting the solar wind particles from the Sun. The moon Titan orbits within the outer part of Saturn's magnetosphere and contributes plasma from the ionized particles in Titan's outer atmosphere.”

The gas ball bulges at the equator, and the poles are flattened. The rings surround the equator in regimented bands.  So, are the matter-laden rings of this gas-ball planet held in one place by electromagnetic energy between the ball itself and the magnetosphere of Saturn? Why did all the debris not go flying into the gas-ball itself? Do all of those gas molecules not have gravitational “pull”, or is there no such attraction for some reason?

All the effects described in this hypothesis involve 'point-charged' situations. Coulomb gets the math jobs.
 
If I kept looking, I am sure I could find many more questions that ‘gravity’ simply does not answer. Does no one else ever examine these anomalies, or are we just too comfortable in the security blanket of an impregnable mindset?

Sorry for the long blurb. I am often left with little choice but having to say more than enough, which probably still will not be adequate for the diehards.

Thanks for your patience.

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 #47 on: 12/11/2007 22:19:15 »
The connection of quotes from wikipedia with garbage text does not explain anything.  What you have just written is total rubbish from any point of view. It is so disjointed it cannot even be refuted.  I have noted that you use the term "ring currents" quite a lot.  This is a term not used by others and seems to bear an important relationship to the ideas that you appear to be trying to explain.  Perhaps you might like to explain clearly, logically and simply, precisely what you mean by this and its relationship to the reasons why planets stay in their orbits and things drop to the ground in the absence of what most rational people consider to be the presence of matter creating small distortions in the three dimensional structure of space ie Gravity.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2007 22:20:49 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #48 on: 13/11/2007 03:15:51 »
With all due respect Sir, your lack of love for courtesy most seriously disappoints me. It would certainly seem to me that a truly unbiased (retired) person of credentials would generally be more prepared to extend a greater effort than the tiny consideration that you allowed me for the tremendous amount of effort I continuously expend.
 
In only two hours, you read, instantly rejected, typed and returned a caustic reply, all while failing to even try to review any of the sites that I provided, which would have helped to fill in some of the gaps that I left, primarily out of a consideration that I could not burden anyone with more text than they were prepared to read. I expected that you either already knew, or at least would review something of what I provided.

Here are some sites to review about “ring currents”, (the generic term that I use),if you wish to continue at all. I must say that I will not bother to reply to any more such negative missives.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824130101.htm
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Fld.Alnd.Currents/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

No hard feelings, right?

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #49 on: 13/11/2007 19:47:09 »
"I again must restate that there is no point trying to determine the origin of any actual energy that moved the lead balls in Cavendish's experiment"
I didn't ask for the energy source; I asked what the force was. I know it's gravity by deffinition but you say that doesn't exist.
As Soul Surfer says, much of what you say doesn't make any more sense than that quote.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #49 on: 13/11/2007 19:47:09 »

 

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