The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 85886 times)

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 #50 on: 14/11/2007 23:58:08 »
I am quite familiar with plasma currents of this nature and the articles to which you refer.  Whilst these are interesting things they do not exert forces that are significant with the energy of motion of planets and satellites.  Also the directions and variations of thes forces on charged bodies throughout space bear no resemblence to the simple central force that is generated by a gravitating object.  So I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider such a process as offering any alternative to the currenly generally accepted theory of universal gravitiation.
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #51 on: 16/11/2007 05:16:19 »
Fleep, "right or wrong", your efforts and erudition are most impressive, and genuinely appreciated. I apologize, I am not prepared to follow your thoughtful arguments. I respect your courtesy. May I  suggest that your interpretation, or anyones interpretations, of experiments that do not agree with the theory or principles of gravity do not necessarily disprove the existence of gravity. Must we not consider the preponderance of evidence for the existence of gravity. Even gravity does not operate in a vacuum. In other words, gravity, or its' effects can be influenced by other forces. It is the task of physics to discover the relationships between these seemingly disparate forces. It amazing to me how much we still have to learn about the dynamics of fluids. Specifically, is seem to me that "large body gravity", and gravitational effects, observed near the surface of the earth can be subject to entirely different effects, yet to be characterized. I suspect that these potential effects constitutes the confusion and "arguments" herein. This is my unqualified opinion.         
« Last Edit: 16/11/2007 05:25:50 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #52 on: 18/11/2007 18:06:57 »
Hi;

Answering to specific questions by Bored Chemist and Soul Surfer –

I have to believe that you both have reviewed and understand the basic claims about the confirmed discovery of Negative Pressure, and the ring currents that surround Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth. These discoveries do not refute gravity. They only extend the amount of human knowledge to a higher plane. The fact that my hypothesis tries to attribute what is historically known as ‘gravity’ to another possibility can cause no dangerous threat to what is almost globally accepted as real.
 
I respectfully ask that you read this very carefully, without prejudice, because if and when science absolutely proves that Gravitational Theory can be made into a Law, then I too will be very satisfied. I don’t just have a mindless “hate” for gravity. I only seek to examine all possibilities.

Bored Chemist- From Messg. 139126

“I didn't ask for the energy source; I asked what the force was. I know it's gravity by definition but you say that doesn't exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#Measurement_of_the_gravitational_constant

Wiki says: “gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to measure it indirectly.” (e.g. – against another (real) fundamental such as electromagnetics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Wiki says: “The modern quantum mechanical view of the three fundamental forces (all except gravity) is that particles of matter (fermions) do not directly interact with each other, but rather carry a charge, and exchange virtual particles (gauge bosons), which are the interaction carriers or force mediators. For example, photons are the mediators of the interaction of electric charges; and gluons are the mediators of the interaction of color charges.”

Of the 4 “Fundamental  Interactions”, only gravitation has an unproven/hypothetical mediator, called a “graviton”, which is theorized to be infinite in range, like electromagnetism. So, if science itself has not yet nailed down anything more than a hypothetical “mediator”, (energy delivery system), why would I try to come up with or create any other fundamental force than “electromagnetic”, whose range is infinite? I would be daft to invent one of my own.
The very second that I find out that ‘gravitons’ have been scientifically verified as real, all arguments against “gravitation” will collapse, and that includes my own hypotheses as well, and I too will be as happy as a clam.
=======================================================================================================

Soul Surfer – Messg. 138941

“I have noted that you use the term "ring currents", (etc). 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 i.e. Gravity.”

(I gave you the sites, and you answered as below.)

Soul Surfer –  Messg. 139445

“I am quite familiar with plasma currents, etc.  They do not exert forces that are significant with the energy of motion of planets and satellites.  Also the directions and variations of these forces on charged bodies throughout space bear no resemblance to the simple central force that is generated by a gravitating object.”
============================================================================================
 
OK – First, you asked “Why things drop to the ground (if no gravity)”– (see my following model)

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

My Model  1 - to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
=================

The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D., up and down.
I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' at the same pressure for their strata level. There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels". (They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32 fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight and pressure above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing (columnar) atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.

The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.

This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.

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

Secondly, you asked “why planets stay in their orbits (if no gravity)”.

Explanation - (hypothesis)

(I remember the fundamental explanation/theory about what would happen if a powerful cannon was fired horizontally from a mountain-top and the cannonball went straight out of the atmosphere and fell into a secure “straight-line” orbit, and continued to circumnavigate a body without falling to the surface of the body. I use it to help envision the orbits of all of the moons and planets in our galaxy, and farther out, even to (just inside) the “plasmapause” of the universe, if there is one. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_magnetic_field

Wiki says: “The Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) is the term for the Sun’s magnetic field carried by the solar wind among the planets of the Solar System.

Since the solar wind is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas. For example, it is highly electrically conductive so that magnetic field lines from the Sun are carried along with the wind. The dynamic pressure of the wind dominates over the magnetic pressure through most of the solar system (or heliosphere), so that the magnetic field is pulled into an Archimedean spiral pattern (the Parker spiral) by the combination of the outward motion and the Sun's rotation. Depending on the hemisphere and phase of the solar cycle, the magnetic field spirals inward or outward; the magnetic field follows the same shape of spiral in the northern and southern parts of the heliosphere, but with opposite field direction. These two magnetic domains are separated by a two current sheet (an electric current that is confined to a curved plane). This heliospheric current sheet has a similar shape to a twirled ballerina skirt, and changes in shape through the solar cycle as the Sun's magnetic field reverses about every 11 years.

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.”
==============================================================================================

The following, and all bodies in our solar system, are situated within the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Magnetic bodies in our Solar System that have moon(s) and an atmosphere:

Earth - 1 moon*, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Mars - 2 moons, and an atmosphere.  (Patchy magnetic surface on Mars.)
Jupiter - 62 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Saturn - 48 moons an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Uranus - 27 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Neptune - 13 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Magnetic_field

 Wiki says: *Re our moon –“the largest crustal magnetizations appear to be located near the antipodes of the giant impact basins. It has been proposed that such a phenomenon could result from the free expansion of an impact generated plasma cloud around the Moon in the presence of an ambient magnetic field.”

(Don’t forget that we only see the one face of the moon, and that’s where most (31%) of the moon’s magnetism is located.)

(All of the orbiting bodies of our solar system are, in effect, “moons” of our sun, regardless of their features or “possessions”, and they all survive in the ambient magnetic field that the sun provides.

An observation:

Curiously, there are “regular” and “irregular” natural satellites. The latter, though ostensibly contained within a theatre where a “gravitational constant” is the current star, act strangely differently from “regular” satellites. I wonder why that would be so?  Electricity, on the other hand, is an actual, non-theoretical form of energy that allows different types of work to be performed, even all at one time in some cases. I fall back again, of course, on the dictionary definitions:
 
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’.

What do you suppose all of these universal electrical things are doing out there, if gravity already has every “job” taken care of? Science admits to knowing relatively little about things like the function of the Van Allen Belts, magnetospheres, and even the newly discovered “Negative Pressure” of the universe.

It has been confirmed that Einstein’s Cosmological Constant has been identified as the Negative Pressure that we formerly called “Dark Energy”.

Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?
 
A constant negative pressure might be the only background mediator that permits an equal and opposite reaction to occur, yet still retain the work within a “locality” where the work is needed to be done. Newton’s 3rd Law might be enabled in space, only by reason of the (newly discovered and confirmed) presence of Negative Pressure – i.e. – Newton’s Cosmologic Constant.

Have I made my hypothesis any clearer for you, please?

Thanks for your patience.

fleep
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #53 on: 20/11/2007 05:30:35 »
I respectfully ask that you read this very carefully, without prejudice, ...........,
I read this, considered the amount of work you have put into your posts, and thought I should give your ideas another chance. However, you then continued..
.... because if and when science absolutely proves that Gravitational Theory can be made into a Law,.....
This troubles me greatly. You seem to believe that theories become laws, that Laws are superior to theories. This troubles me because if you have such a basic misunderstanding of the mechanics of scientific methodology, what are the chances that you have correctly interpreted the mass of data you have considered? I wait your comments with interest.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #54 on: 20/11/2007 19:55:53 »
OK so I got another near random quote from wiki.
Let's see if I get a real answer this time.
Fleep, what moved the balls?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #55 on: 22/11/2007 00:27:02 »
Hi BC:

What made the balls move?

We have traditionally reasoned that the attraction between separate “objects” can be attributed to “gravity”, and as we very well know from the Cavendish experiment and its copiers, the measurements of distance between two like objects of different sizes and/or types, do indeed produce answers.
 
Those experiments were intentionally conducted in environments where no man-made electrical fields could possibly prejudice the “natural function of gravity”. What they did not know at the times of those experiments is that they were already being conducted in the presence of an ongoing “influence”, both inside and outside the participating objects. Even matter we regard to be “non-magnetic” experiences a constant stream of neutrinos, regardless of which state of matter is involved.

Since the neutrinos were passing through both the gap between the objects and the objects themselves, everything involved in the aforesaid experiments might have in fact, been electromagnetically connected (to a miniscule degree), even under circumstances that were designed to be laboratory conditions.

Interactions involving neutrinos are generally mediated by the weak nuclear force.  There might have been an almost immeasurably tiny electrically neutral “bridge” between the two positive objects, from the first time the experiment was done, through all of its subsequent repetitions.

The “W” and “Z” bosons are said to interact with a neutrino, and since all the effects at and below the atomic level have not been fully mitigated, (as all the problems with gravity have not), any (non-gravitational) “attractive” aspect/possibility of such experimental encounters needs verification and more scientific explanation. A neutrino is real. A “graviton” is unproven.

All of this conjecture, like the hypothetical “graviton”, constitutes another mere hypothesis, which, as all lucid minds will realize makes them identically unproven.

All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?

Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #56 on: 22/11/2007 15:37:29 »
Hi;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_medium

Neutrinos radiate in all directions from the sun, completely across our solar system, and assumedly beyond the plasmapause of our galaxy all the time. Neutrinos are particles, and having been conveyed by an energy transmission facility, they are mediated by the weak nuclear force in all matter where work is needed to be done, or has been elementally pre-assigned. They also pass completely through everything else, if nothing needs to be performed.

It is interesting to note from the first reference above, that “the concept of “medium” does not apply in a vacuum”. That conclusion apparently arose prior to the recent discovery of Negative Pressure, which has been confirmed to exist (November 2005), and to prove Einstein’s “Cosmological Constant” to be real.

Since N.P./”dark energy” is in fact a genuine thing, does it not then imply that it truly is, (or might be), a “transmission medium” that does in fact, operate universally and continuously within a vacuum? If this might be so, then Negative Pressure appears to be a much more logical answer to the workings of the universe, and not just a weak theoretical “force”, whose only way of being transmitted as energy is by a hypothetical particle called a “graviton”?

Why is this not a logical possibility please? (Even Newton believed in a "medium", and actually had an Aether theory.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Newtonian_.C3.A6ther

Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #57 on: 22/11/2007 20:33:34 »
"All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?"
Count the questions you have asked on this page and see just how many I'm ignoring.
"why would I try to come up with or create any other fundamental force than “electromagnetic”, whose range is infinite? I would be daft to invent one of my own."
Because electromagnetism doesn't work. It's not universal and it only works for charged objects.

I already pointed this out and so when you asked it again I ignored it.

"What do you suppose all of these universal electrical things are doing out there, if gravity already has every “job” taken care of?"
I supose they are doing what electromagnetism always does ie not explaining the Cavendish experiement or the tides.
It's still electromagnetism. It still doesn't work, so I ignored it again.

Here's a more interesting one
"Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?"

OK for a start the idea of a cosmological constant might not be compatible with Newton (III). There's no reason why it should be after all a fair few of Newton's idesa bit the dust when Einstein got involved. But the real "question" you ask is what of the possibility .....?
Well what of it? There's no evidence for the sugestion. I might as well ask "what about the possibility that I'm God and I'm telling you gravity exists?
It just isn't a valid point.

Perhaps you can understand why I ignored it.


"Have I made my hypothesis any clearer for you, please?"
No.
I'm afraid I ignored this question too.
Which brings us back to your most recent question
"All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?"
To which my answer is "just as soon as you stop talking nonsense"; here are some examples (I'm not sure they are in the right order).

You have tried to blame electrostatic interactions until I pointed out that any charge would leak away. Then you tried to blame covalency until I pointed out that this was only applicable over very short distances- ie within a molecule.
Next to enter the party was the nuclear force- soon dispatched because it doesn't even have as big a range as the covalency. Somewhere along the line you mentioned London forces and after a while I convinced you that, since 6 isn't the same as 2, there was no way they were responsible.
Now you are tryint to implicate neutrinos- the most notable property of neutrinos is that they don't interact well with matter. Since they do practically nothing it's patently absurd to ascribe things like the tides or the Cavendish experiment to the. More absurd yet is to say "everything involved in the aforesaid experiments might have in fact, been electromagnetically connected " when neutrinos are not charged (the clue is in the name).
Even if it were a much bigger force you would have a problem. The sun is a major source of neutrinos. The effect of gravity would be different at night.

OK It's not neutrinos so what made the balls move?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #58 on: 23/11/2007 18:37:24 »
Hi BC;

Certainly your return comments have often made me change directions and seek another possibility, because that’s why I’m asking questions in a forum like this one.  The cooperation and the answers are better, more intelligent, and (usually) less caustic than I can scare up in North American forums. Whenever you make me seek another possibility, that’s a good thing, even if I have to take a little abuse to get there.

The difference between our two approaches is that you seem forever unprepared to consider current discoveries. In support of my latest neutrino approach, I try look at everything coming down the pike. Current technology is vital to get the ancient questions answered. There is some interesting data here for example:  (I look for any key phrases and isolate them. I always do this and include seemingly relevant phrases when I prepare my next run at The Naked Scientists. I don’t just fire off unprepared thoughts.)

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

See the item – “Mars express looks at ionosphere.” (abbreviated below – see the site for complete text.))

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx
   
Mars and Earth both possess an ionosphere — a layer of ionized (electrically charged) particles — in their upper atmospheres. (Note that both have magnetospheres/ electrical switchboards, too.)

Solar radiation and particles in the solar wind split the atoms and molecules, releasing free electrons.
 
"We confirmed that the regions of high electron density are associated with strongly magnetized areas, especially south of the equator, near places where the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the surface" "On Earth, this situation is only found at the two magnetic poles. The interaction with the solar wind energizes the atmosphere and produces a population of free electrons."

MARSIS is expected to map the regions where the solar wind connects to the Martian magnetic field.
 
========================================================================================================

The above item is about solar wind, but identifies long-range electrical work being done. The article is very generally described, but I think it fortifies my belief about the work being done at the atomic level by neutrinos, (inside and maybe even outside solar systems and galaxies) right across the universe.

Here’s a replay of what you bounced back at me:

fleep had said:

"Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?"

BC said: (I’m answering each point in the brackets).

OK for a start the idea of a cosmological constant might not be compatible with Newton (III). (Now, THAT is illogical.) There's no reason why it should be, after all a fair few of Newton's ideas bit the dust when Einstein got involved. (But the 3rd Law remained untarnished, didn’t it?) But the real "question" you ask is what of the possibility .....? Well what of it? There's no evidence for the suggestion. I might as well ask, "what about the possibility that I'm God and I'm telling you gravity exists?” (But you’re not, and that’s another red herring.)

(Oh boy! Evidence? What evidence? If I’m only one of a few that don’t believe in gravity, do you suppose that science will realistically spend a dime to find something that will disprove another something that the world (might) have become habitually stuck with? Why do you suppose I’m trying to tweak a single authoritative mind into admitting that it looks like there really might be another answer (to “gravity”) out there?)

(You brought up God, so I’m suggesting another possibility, that maybe sometimes God only gives us the right question.)

Perhaps you can understand why I ignored it. (Yes, I do. Your mindset is scientifically typical.)

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

To close -

Yes,BC; as you say, the key is in the fact that they are neutral. If not, a neutrino would have to be operatively selective in the (positive or negative) electrical work it must do, depending on where the work needs to be done when the neutrinos arrive there.  By being neutral, it can handle either a positive or negative type of work, by being able to multi-task.

 A “force” cannot know what work it has to do. Energy is expended when a job needs to be done, and that generally implies the need for a “trigger”. Neutrinos certainly don’t know where they are going when they leave the sun, and some jobs out there need a charge and others do not. Maybe the elemental work to be done sets the decision-making “trigger”, so the neutrino has to be neutral when it arrives. It would then act either positively or negatively with the weak force, as the matter "instructs".

Maybe we don’t have to worry about “the gravity effect being different at night”, as you said, because there just might be no gravity anywhere. Electromagnetism does not have universal work, but it does operate and perform work where it is required. Where it’s not needed, nothing happens there. The (physical) energy form itself, like all other true energy forms, is universal in its availability for purpose.

OK It's not neutrinos so what made the balls move? (It was an electrical transfer by energy, because a “force” cannot travel without energy being expended. That is straight out of science’s own definitions.)

The relevant claims of my messages 140526 and 140572 still stand.

Thanks for your help.

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 #59 on: 23/11/2007 22:41:06 »
Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behavour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #60 on: 25/11/2007 20:19:07 »
Hi folks;

BC hasn't responded to my last, but SS said:

"Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behaviour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical."

Hmmmpf. Gravitation “seems” to be comfortable, so that’s the prominent old belief that science has for a working tool right now. It’s just like all the other ancient theories once seemed comfortable until they were ultimately disproved. Just like all the post-Newton things that have been disproved by science, either before or after their individual evaluations, they were not considered “nonsense”. They were based on what seemed to be logical considerations, and if they were logical enough, they might have been published, and someone else took a good look at them, because they were not “nonsense”. They had at least one element of possibility, and without question, a myriad of seemingly logical hypotheses have been buried by their own authors, without even having come to the light of others. Everyone makes mistakes in logic.

“Nonsense”, by definition, is the use of absurd or meaningless words or ideas. I choose to build my (possibly still unconnected) hypotheses on authoritative sources, and I provide those references wherever I can, so that others might consider them as “possible links” in the resolution of things (like “gravitation”), which remains but a theory after more than 300 years. If gravitation is ever completely proven to be an absolute truth, I will joyfully concede that I must have been hunting for a Loch Ness monster in the highlands.

I would be speaking “nonsense” had I set myself up to be an unapproachable “authority” on a subject that still has not been resolved by the best minds in the world. I am obviously not an "authority", and I know of no other human being who is an "absolute" on any subject. While my thoughts do not follow the constant track used by the academically elite, I know that learning is a progressive thing that cannot be turned off once one supposes that they have “mastered” themes that all the past and current genius of science has not yet resolved. Professional careers end only with death, not retirement.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure.

Extracted from section called “Characteristics”-

Birkeland currents can also interact; parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart. (Note that the electromagnetic force between the individual particles is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, just like the gravitational force); parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart.

See also:  http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html

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

Would someone please explain/justify (at least), the inverse square “coincidence” to me, and to the rest of the curious. We have the math, so we don't need it here. Someone apparently must know, (but have not disclosed), a complete and faultless logical answer to this question.

Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #61 on: 26/11/2007 02:38:03 »
Re:fleep. I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online, slightly reworded for this post. "Newton described in his "Opticks", the origin of the inverse square relationship. He examined the elements of circular motion, and applied his analysis to the moon and planets and noted that the radically directed force acting on a planet decreased with the square of its distance from the sun". Therefore, the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics. I am not sure if this is the explanation you are seeking, since it is readily available, if researched. That is the "explanation", in terms of its origin, as well as the fact that this relationship, in the context of gravitational mechanics, can predict, with the knowledge of relevant masses, forces and distance. This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity. Scientific knowledge and understanding are provisional, therefore it is unreasonable to ask for a "complete and faultless" explanation/justification for the inverse square relationship. The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding. You have every right to promulgate and defend your theory/s, and they are much appreciated. But as a scientifically learned individual you must realize they are only theories. Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others. Kahlil Gibran wrote in the "Prophet", "say not that I have found the truth, but rather I have found a truth". In other words, the ultimate truth alludes us. Therefore a degree of humility is necessary if we genuinely desire to learn and grow intellectually(and spiritually). Moreover, the mere fact that other forces exist, does not of necessity, invalidate gravity. If you are suggesting that gravity is more than mass attraction, that seems reasonable. To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play, is consistent with scientific understanding.But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid. Moreover, how reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events. After all, the understanding of gravity is bases upon and derived from certain celestial events. This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much? Thank you for allow me to participate.               
« Last Edit: 26/11/2007 02:51:11 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #62 on: 26/11/2007 19:26:04 »
Hi John;


I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online. ... the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics.
 
I own a full 25 volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica published over the years 1878 and 1885. Newton, (and most British philosopher/mathematicians) are well covered therein, (Vol. XVII, pages 438 – 449), and I know the history. Mid-way down page 441 begins the whole explanation. (De Coulomb gets a small vague, non-explicit column in the "D" book.) I hope you can lay your hands on the whole Newton history and of the inverse square development. Books like mine must still be available over there somewhere. Thanks for including it anyway.

This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity.

 Yes, perhaps in some ways it does. I’m trying to find out if the adaptation of the gravity theory-based Inverse Square Law to “point charges” in the vacuum of space (not on Earth), has been closely measured and confirmed to be consistent in enough circumstances to validate it as constantly equivalent in the way it has been applied, where currents and current “sheets and ropes” of innumerable types, shapes, sizes, and functional sources perform. Who knows what hidden understandings remain to be found; possibly even in the nature of “forces” that no one has ever even contemplated? I’m not saying it’s probable, but is it impossible? We don’t know enough yet about the “electrics” of the great vacuum, and realization is often a most painful form of discovery.

The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". That definition appears in none of my prominent dictionaries.

This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding.

There is no bias here. I would have to be mad to genuinely try to sabotage science. It would also be humanly impossible for anyone to execute such a pre-planned agenda on a grand scale.  What does that leave for my motive, except a great concern about the status quo? The bias is obviously in the resistance to my suggestions of potential change possibilities.

I openly admit that I do not believe in classical gravitation. I physically can see neither God nor gravitation, but I form and will publically admit and defend, (in the proper forum), my spiritual convictions, based on what I regard to be “evidence”). People happen to believe without adequately explaining the inconsistencies of gravity, which is supposed to be a “constant”. I can’t raise a real belief in it, because it is inconsistent and leaves many of my questions unanswered or with (some) implausible  replies. I keep saying I’ll be happy if I’m proven completely wrong. Why am I always asking for answers? I simply am trying to tweak other minds to look in the direction of other possibilities.

Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others.

My hypotheses are simply that, like a (hypothetical) “graviton”. Science pretends sometimes. Am I not allowed to employ (def.) “a supposition made as a basis for reasoning”? When I asked for a “complete and faultless” explanation of a particular gravitational anomaly, I was being unfair, because if gravity is only a theory, their answer can only be theoretical. Now that you make that plain, I am sorry for posing the question that way.

To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play is consistent with scientific understanding.

I keep saying that maybe they are.

But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid?

I keep saying that maybe they are not.

How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?

I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out. 

This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much?

Excuse me please. I would have sworn that my continuous claims, that I might be wrong, were screaming out that my opinion is unqualified, primarily because I must always provide authoritative sites and sources that my logic has been built upon. What I largely receive is denigrations that effectually condemn those authoritative sources, and then blame me for trying to “think outside the box”, which is the philosophical target of all modern enterprise. Who is the turtle here?

I have been driven to arrogance at times. I have been demeaning at times. I have been wrong at times. Mea maxima culpa. I will try to be more thoughtful in the manner of my delivery.

Thanks for your comments.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #63 on: 26/11/2007 20:51:40 »
I didn't respond because I'm still waiting for you to tell me what moved the balls.

Incidentally, you seem to be looking at ever smaller or shorter-range forces. That's presumably because the obvious ones have already been ruled out (electromagnetism, covalent interactions and such). Now you are looking at the really obscure stuff where the experiments are a bit marginal, even for today's technology.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The force of gravity is quite big enough and obvious enogh to have been measured all those years ago with relatively primitive equipment.
Why try to blame the effect on something that's scarcely measurable with today's technology?
One is simply a lot bigger than the other so they cannot be the same.

But, while I'm waiting
"How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?

I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out.  "
Science has been doing, in its way over the course of human history, quite a good job of predicting celestial events.
It's an odd definition of science that includes stonehenge but the predictions work just fine 4000 years on. Since gravity works that well, why should scince waste time looking for non existent forces?
 

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #64 on: 27/11/2007 02:19:12 »
Friend fleep, you indicated that the explanation I offered of the inverse square relation, and the definition of “coincidence”, are not consistent with the information contained in your encyclopedia or dictionaries, respectively.Firstly, "my" explanation of the inverse square relationship is clearly a synopsis, not a complete and detailed account. Such overviews do not discount, or ignore the details that completely explain the process by which the inverse square relationship was derived. Secondly, the mere fact that you could not find an exact definition for "coincidence",consistent with the one I presented, does not mean that the definitions you researched are materially different in their meaning or word sense. It is highly probable that these different definitions are close enough for present purposes. As well, you do not offer a different explanation or definition, which is absolutely necessary if you intend to question or refute the value, or significance of the information I presented.Therein, you are not speaking to the issue.If, as you directly imply, that my explanation and definition are inadequate, please provide details  as to their inappropriateness and provide correctives.In other words, please point out specifically where and how "my" explanation and definition fail.In addition, you have not logically demonstrated why the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. It is a contradiction, to agree, as you do, that the inverse square relationship is derived from observation of physical events, and at the same time suggest that the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. Further, I would suggest that the current, online version of the Britannic is more accurate than all, except the most current print version.Thank You for allowing me to participate.         
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 00:57:40 by johnbrandy »
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #65 on: 01/12/2007 14:32:19 »
Hi guys:

(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)

Pascal & Newton’s 3rd

Some might be familiar with Model 1, and if so, can skip past to the Introduction to Model 2. The suggested new Model 2 (below) has been extrapolated/patterned from my (heretofore non-criticized), Model 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Purpose - to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D., up and down.
I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' at the same pressure for their strata level.
There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels".
(They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32 fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight and pressure above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing (columnar) atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.

The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.

This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.

==========================================================================================================================
==========================================================================================================================
An introduction to Model #2:

There is an interrelationship between Pascal’s (Pressure) Law and Newton’s 3rd (equal and opposite reaction) Law, but the possible presence of “gravity” in matter confuses the issue. There could be valuable new scientific perspectives to be obtained by analysing any questions that will fall into place only after the following model/scenario has been completely considered. This is respectfully offered for the consideration of professional interests, and in no way claims to do anything more than suggest possibilities and raise questions.

Pascal’s Law says that “Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them”.

 If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure rating of 14.7 PSI to our sea level, then the opposite reaction should demand that there be an upper/opposite 14.7 PSI limit that contains Pascal’s “closed vessel”, which we call our atmosphere, and yet, pressure diminishes as we rise in altitude. A “closed vessel” must be a complete and definitive container in which pressure is exerted globally and equally at right angles. The problem with declaring the atmosphere and the ocean as “closed vessels” and “equal pressures” is of course, that they are composed of stratifications of pressures, and are influenced by weather and other natural and unnatural means. This makes it necessary to construct a model that precludes all global interference.
======================================================================================================================

 Model  2 – The Planet Earth on a still day.

Purpose - To see the planet, skies, and landmasses as 3 empty, lifeless, weatherless units of consideration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To look at the world’s “single ocean”, the entire atmosphere, and the total landmass as “closed vessels”, we must naturally view them all at rest, so we can make the relationship in that way.

The model demands that the sea is flat, so the currents and wave action is stopped, everywhere on the planet.

There are no winds or other movement in the atmosphere above the waters. This is necessary in the model, in order for us to be able to say that the stratification of both the waters and the gases are contained in “perfectly balanced” vessels.

Both the oceans and atmosphere are normally stratified by temperature, and by weights of content, but.....

The gaseous stratifications and the ocean’s reasons for stratification must now each be independently homogenized to create a “perfect model”. Nothing can be added, nor taken away.

Nothing is living or riding/flying through the homogenized sky, and nothing is living in the homogenized sea or on any landmass. All of the atmosphere and the ocean are independently and "evenly mixed".

The sky temperature is all at a single constant value, and the sea is at its own temperature.

There is no fluid or fractile motion going on anywhere, including within the landmass of the planet.

All is still and constant, in all of the Earth’s closed vessels that come into question here.

All natural environments (including landmasses) must be seen as empty of all living things, and of all unnatural content.

There is no breath, nor other form of wind, and there are no influential pressures at work on either the sea or the sky, from any direction.

All incoming rivers, springs, melts, and land-based watercourses are temporarily halted or do not exist.

All volcanoes, fires, quakes, and other sources of motion or emission are non-existent for the purposes of this model.

Nothing is bleeding off the atmosphere into space and nothing is moving or growing, anywhere on the planet, so the air, the water, and the land are “completely clean” and fixed in place. All is motionless.

What does still exist however, are the referenced 3rd Law of Newton and Pascal`s Pressure Law.

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


The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?

This homogenized model is the only way I know in which the study can be explained and understood.
=====================================================================================================================

Commentary:

If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure to the oceans, then they have declared it to be a "closed vessel".They have also then effectively  declared the atmosphere above the ocean to be a “closed vessel”. By extension, science has thus assigned the same characteristic to each and every nucleus that composes those oceans and atmosphere, and therefore by logical extension, to each and every atom in the universe. Ergo, the landmass is also a "closed vessel". Gravity is after all, a “constant”, according to science, so it must work the same everywhere in the universe.

If gravity is a “constant”, then it must be exactly that, if it does exist as a “materially influential force” in the universe. Being a “force”, gravity has a mandatory need under the very definitive rules of science, to be able to transfer that force by a known energy delivery system to perform work at another distant (“X”) location. One fully acknowledged and verified truth about every atom of every element is that its electrons travel freely as required, outside the internally-bound closed vessel that we call the “nucleus”. An electron is thus the only part of any atom that has “freedom” across the entire universe. All nucleii are bound within themselves and may combine with others only with the "permissions" allotted to each element by the known "rules" of covalence.

With the known “binding forces” contained within each single nucleus, every atom’s nucleus is a closed and positive pressure vessel, and with the recent discovery of Negative Pressure in November 2005, we might now suspect that every individual atom, including ions, is in a “balanced” and positive state of pressure. (Negative Pressure, by the way, is a confirmation of Einstein`s Cosmological Constant.) This would put gravity in a singular role as a benign facility that only gives scalability to mass, so gravity could not be an extendable force at all, unless a “graviton” was eventually proven to be a new and separate form of energy, as electricity is.

No graviton has been proven to be anything more than something that can only be sensibly defined as a supposition that arises from a scientific need for an explanation of how a “force” can do “work” at a distance, without having to employ a conveyor of some sort of energy. In light of this absence of transfer energy, absolutely nothing is left to explain the movement of the lead balls in Cavendish’s experiment, or in the like result of any of his “copiers”. This appears to be an undeniable fact that can only be refuted by a proven scientific explanation of, “What moved the lead balls in the Cavendish experiment?” I have no such answer, and a graviton may be inadequately equipped to be that answer. The following point might best explain my reason why:

If a graviton is found to be a genuine energy form, heretofore undiscovered, then it seems logical that it is subject to the verified laws of physics, and must also convey an equal and opposite reaction. This would seem to contest its theorized role as a (singly) attractive force.

Pertinent comments welcome.

Thanks

fleep


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #66 on: 02/12/2007 13:15:52 »
Does this "(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)" mean that you can't answer a simple question?

"What moved the balls?" is a real fundamental question for any plausible theory aboout gravity; it's not rhetorical.

Oh, btw we dismissed this idea "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. " earlier because without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways.
Since I already pointed that out in an earlier post I wonder why you are rehashing it. Did you forget that it was rubish?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #67 on: 02/12/2007 15:35:37 »
Hi BC;

I said "pertinent comments are welcome". You're blaming me for re-hashing, and you just keep on demanding an answer to a question for which even science has no non-hypothetical answer. Now that is illogical.

Sure. The question about the balls is a real fundamental question, but like I said before, nobody actually knows that answer, including you, and I will not even try to answer that one again, because the "transfer energy" that caused an apparent effect of "attraction", has simply never been identified, except by a hypothethetical means.

You say that;  "without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways."

Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down? That's all wet. All the atomic "weights" in any matter comprise the total "burden" of what it is. "Gravity", which is by every scientific admission, a very weak force, has nothing to do with the natural atmospheric behaviour of a falling burden.

Consider this: A falling object is extremely magnetic, but it gets torn away from a plane by the jet's velocity. It had been magnetically attached to another highly magnetic place on the plane. Now, if the Earth's weak force of gravity is allegedly concentrating such a weak force from 50,000 feet down, and the extremely magnetic and attractive spot on the plane does not override the weak force below, and make the falling magnet try to return to the plane, why do you insist that a weak force has any role in this at all? Stuff just falls downwards through the atmosphere, because that is just the nature of the atmosphere and falling objects. Nothing that has enough total "load of atoms" to overcome a cross-wind (or any other influence, like a lightning bolt, for example), has ever and will never, fall any way but straight down.
 
You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?

The combined atomic "burdens"; i.e. - all the atoms of the object are all that are falling, and the atmosphere does not "know" a plummeting magnet from a falling apple. The atmosphere didn't "know" anything in Newton's day, and it still does not, some 300 years later.

Now. How about the questions asked in my Model 2? They are these, (and please consider Model 2 again before you answer them.)

The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?


Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #68 on: 02/12/2007 18:10:34 »
Science has a perfectly good answer to the question. The answer is gravity.
If you wish to dispute the reallity of gravity you need to come up with an equally plausible explanation. It's perfectly logical for me to ask you what it is.

"Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down?"
Since you said
"This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. "
Otherwise how could it know which way to fall? Of course, universal gravitation answers this perfectly.
Pointing out this failure on your part to provide a reasonable alternative to the well established fact of gravity or pointing out that three's a problem with your idea about things naturally falling down without having something to define which way is "down" is perfectly pertinant to the matter in hand.



"You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?"
 Yes and no. I'm pointing out that, without gravity to tell them which way to fall things might fall sideways. This is absurd. It is also a drict consequence of the non existance of gravity that you are putting forward.
I'm glad that you recognise it is daft; why don't you recognise it as a feature of a universe without gravity?
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #69 on: 02/12/2007 21:37:47 »
Hi;

Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation", but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?
 
Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space. My model 1 (inside an atmosphere) explains how stuff falls to Earth from the Karman Line. Outside an atmosphere, the only stuff an object falling (in any direction) hits out in the vacuum is anything directly in its dierect path, and there isn't anything (except maybe antimatter,) attracting it to what it hits out in space, any more than there is inside an atmosphere. Falling in atmosphere = downward. Falling in the vacuum of space = any direction. "Gravitation" offers no behaviour of any kind that could be called a "constant".

Whatever do you mean about my "failure to provide a reasonable alternative"? It's electricity, of course. I have pointed out many times that we live in an electric universe, and about all the live currents in space, and the magnetospheres, and the Van Allen belts, and the neutrinos, and the plasmas, and the tightly-bound electrical properties of atomic nuclei, and the universal freedom of electrons, and the anomalies like Janus and Epimetheus that defy "gravitation", and on and on. The cosmos is filled with electrically generated signals and waves. Einstein even had to come up with "relativity" it to get around the "problems" that gravity left unexplained.

Somehow, you hold onto an old theory that can't even account for an energy transfer method of its own, which science says every "force" must have to deliver the "work" of that force to its work destination. (No energy delivered = no work performed.)

I haven't actually stipulated the falling of things (exclusively)as a feature of a "universe without gravity", because I clearly have separated the behavioural difference between things falling through the vacuum, and things falling through an atmosphere to define only those behaviours individually. When a logical approach is taken, then anyone can consider that there is a difference between those two behaviours, and therefore, gravitation can not be a universal "constant" at all. A "universe without gravity", as you call it, is suddenly a very clear picture.

As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?

Now. How about addressing the 3 questions I asked, based on my Model 2?

Again, these are:

(I said:) "The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:"

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?

Address those, and we can get down to work.


Thanks.

fleep
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #70 on: 03/12/2007 20:55:45 »
"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation""

OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means- it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples.
Yes, gravity is a theory because it is all of those things.
As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.


"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"

That simply isn't true.
The only thing gravity requires matter to do is atract other matter; it does. The presence or absense of air makes no diference to that attraction.
The fact that, for example, a fallig feather is slowwed down by the air doesn't in any sense mean that the feather isn't atracted to the earth- it just means the air gets in the way. What else could it do?

"Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space."
Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.
It's also an observed fact that from any point of view, any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls- it follows exactly the path gravity predicts rather than your ammusing idea that it can go any way it likes. (The moon is a well documented example of such a body- it's path has been "documented" for about 4000 years)

Since these daft ideas have already been shown not to agree with reallity and, as I have said before, if your ideas don't tally with the facts then it isn't the facts that need changing, why are you repeating them?
Are you really just trying to waste time or are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?

BTW, "As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?"
Very funny but you missed the point; be it gravitons, lepricons or morons, something moves the balls.
You can call it what you like but, since the balls move, something must have moved them. Any theory that discounts that is at odds with the facts and, therefore, is wrong.


 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #71 on: 04/12/2007 17:22:18 »
Hi BC;

"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation".
 
OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means - it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples. (The underlined is untrue, or we wouldn’t have Einstein’s theory of Relativity.)

No, it doesn’t actually mean any of what you said at all. Oxford Dictionary says –“Theory” (n) -a view held:  supposition explaining something ; the sphere of speculation as distinguished from that of practice."

“A model of reality” is only the preparation of a display that will possibly (and supposedly) better illustrate a hypothetical extension of a supposition.  My Model 2 (which you continue to dodge) is an example of such a thing.


As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.

I don’t agree. The virtual environment of computers is exponentially advancing our knowledge in just about everything else, but I contend that as long as the efforts persevere in trying to prove a gravity-based something, those virtual models will be designed around and from the viewpoint of a mere assumption that a mere theoretical beginning point for the search is a valid course. Ergo – Gravity is assumed to be real, (and it might be, but is not adequately proven against electrical reasons); so the virtual models repeatedly get based on gravity, an unproven assumption. Where else could they arrive?

How about someone courageously making a virtual model (using space-based "electrics")that is purposefully designed to prove that gravity does not exist? Who wants to find that out? Apparently no one does, and that might only be on account of the fact that we are comfortable in our close-mindedness about the (illogical) possibility that any other possibility (but gravity) could be real.


"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"

 That simply isn't true.

 Oh, but it is. I repeat:" stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space."

Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.

Of course they do. You conveniently ignored that I said in the same message that I was talking about the vacuum of space, and not just any vacuum, such as one that we create on Earth. It is known that stuff falls straight down anywhere on the Earth, or in any other genuine atmosphere. I can’t possibly ever know it, but if we had a vacuum tube that was sealed at ground level extending all the way up into the vacuum of space, perhaps the perfect vacuum would make a small magnetic  material object dropped in the center of the tube, move over and ride downwards against the wall of the tube.  I rather believe that it would be coerced to the wall by the magnetic pole’s attraction, as is a compass needle.  We would never see this if the test was done in a short vacuum column at ground level. Gravity does not move compass needles.

“ any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls - it follows exactly the path gravity predicts ... The moon is a well documented example of such a body...”

Gravity does not predict anything. The old math was created for the purpose of trying to explain the natural event. Math is rather like law. Experts can write math equations that seem to be unexplainably true, but they have no practical use in most cases. Gravity equations were designed merely to answer a supposition that could not be contested against anything else back then, because the electrical facilities in space could not be examined way back then as other options. Build a case, fool a jury, and set a “precedent”.  It’s rather like our inability to quash foolishly high settlements in legal cases where someone has won millions because of an injustice blindly buried inside a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Things like that happen when some believe that “frenzy needs a quick and convenient answer”.

Does it not seem strange to you that some moons and planets follow elliptical orbits, even while some of them are maintaining a particularly “controlled “ axial method of making the seasons reoccur at the same times of their full cycle around their parent body? If gravitation was constant, could only some orbits be elliptical? Even in the unlikely possibility that they are caught in a “gravitational grip” that is allegedly “constant”, would all the magnetic poles and places like the moon’s magnetic “areas” not (possibly) throw the “constant grip” into a chaotic rotation? What would permit the ellipses to maintain their stability? What are Van Allen Belts, ring currents, magnetospheres and electromagnetism doing in all their many cases? Why are you ignoring this whole area of study?

are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?

(Was that ever done by a logical questioning of individual recognition that other possibilities can and might exist, or out of a national patriotism to the “British genius” of Newton?) We Canadians are part of the commonwealth too, but I wouldn’t care if Newton’s theory was written by my own father before he died. If I thought he was wrong, I would say so.  

Any theory that discounts that, is at odds with (either you, or) the facts and, therefore, is wrong.
 
That statement too, is your own theory, which puts it on a par with mine, which is basically a simple (but intensely questioned) suggestion that something else could be truer than the status quo.

Now. How about the questions posed by Model 2?

Thanks.

fleep
 

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 #72 on: 05/12/2007 10:54:25 »
The theory of universal gravitation has produced precise results on the motion of planetary bodies and is totally satisfactory for everyone in the universe except fleep.  I am not proposing to enter into fatuous arguments about this.

The only point that could be argued is the precise origin of this extremely accurate and consistent law.  Relativity explains it in terms of space curvature which looks very satisfactory. 

Numerous others have tried to produce some sort of residual electromagnetic effect like the Van Der walls forces that hold most atoms together but none have been successful.  Any such theory must include the same effects as relativity which has been adequately proved.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2007 15:03:33 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #73 on: 05/12/2007 11:05:03 »
As has been pointed out before, theory in a scientific sense does mean that.
From Wiki.
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

And once again you are granting magic powers to lumps of rock; how else can they tell if they are in a vacuum tube or in the vacuum of space?

The real problem here Fleep is that you don't seem to understand that it takes more than imagination to come up with a useful hypothesis in science.
Imagination alone can produce made up worlds with interesting properties. This isn't always a bad thing; Terry Pratchet has made a lot of money from it.
The problem is when you try to tell use we are living on the diskworld.
We can look at the world and see that your ideas simply don't work.
No ammount of rambling red text will make it right.

To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #74 on: 09/12/2007 18:51:48 »
Hi;

Okay. I can't even sell ice cubes to those who are dying of the heat, but I can do the logic of why they should think about buying something from me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isotropy is the unchanging property of being independent of direction. Radiation, as used in physics, is energy in the form of waves or moving subatomic particles.

 E.g. - Isotropic radiation has the same unchanging intensity regardless of direction of measurement. An isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how a test particle is oriented.

“Isotropic” means a “constant” - (e.g. – such as a constant transfer of force, and thus is universal in its range).

A constant is something, generally a number, that does not change.

(Space is also isotropic, i.e.- (a universal constant).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gravity is said to be non-isotropic, (yet "constant") so it can change in form and intensity and/or vary in any direction.

Because gravity is also "constant in time", it is therefore also said to be universal.
 

So, radiation is a constant isotropic form of energy that never changes, anywhere in the universe.

Gravity, on the other hand, is a non-isotropic “force" , and it is always able to change, anywhere in the universe.

By definition – “Force is an influence” that is said to “cause mass to accelerate, such as gravity, friction, or a push.”

(But it is not the energy that performs the work, and so a force is a stationary influence.)

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

Despite gravity’s contradiction of what a “constant” means, and that a “force” is not and can never be “energy” itself, science insists that gravity is a “universal constant”.

Science is effectively telling us that gravity pulls our tides, even though it cannot, by science’s own definitive explanation of its terms for “force, isotropy, constant, energy, and universal”.

Radiation is energy that moves. Gravity is a "force" which cannot move, so is gravity isotropic or non-isotropic?

Is gravity universal or is it not? Is gravity a force, or is it energy? Is gravity a constant, or is it not? Is gravity anything at all, or is it not?

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

Now I must ask you:Exactly which definition of anything are we supposed to believe?


Thanks

fleep
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #74 on: 09/12/2007 18:51:48 »

 

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