# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is gravitation even real?  (Read 84675 times)

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #75 on: 09/12/2007 20:39:36 »
The constant, comonly denoted by the letter G, is about 6 X 10^-11

That's a number (It has units too but I can't be bothered remembering them). It wil be the same number tomorrow and, by all apearances it's the same number everywhere in the universe.
Why do you not understand that it's a constant?

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.

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #76 on: 09/12/2007 22:09:53 »
Hi BC;

What did I say it was? I said it's "generally a number". That doesn't make science's defintions jive, and I still say that Coulomb's Law is what Newton gets credit for, and it matches Newton's 3rd Law. Electricity is an energy form, that I believe obviously runs the universe, unlike gravity which remains an inconsitent "force" theory.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's Law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

I'm all done here, I guess.

fleep

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #77 on: 10/12/2007 09:30:42 »
That last post about isotropy was total rubbish and shows clearly that you do not understand the meaning of the word Fleep

A light source may emit radiation evenly in all directions ie isotropically ( but most dont)  but if you look away from the light source it is still dark and the radiation pressure still pushes you away from the source.

The only radiation that we see that appears to be almost (but not quite ) isotropic is the cosmic microwave background.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #78 on: 10/12/2007 17:47:55 »
You said it didn't exist, but it makes perfectly good sense if you understand the physics.
Coulomb obviously got credit for Coulomb's law; same with Newton.
Electricity can only run the local bit's of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.
Gravity follows an equation of the same form as electrostatic attraction.
None of this is new.

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #79 on: 11/12/2007 17:21:41 »
BC said: “Electricity can only run the local bits of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.”   (No. Electricity is an energy form, not a “force”.)

Now you’ve done it. A “short range force” is all wrong, and you know it, so I now am forced to present more from legitimate sites, only this time, you will have to find out where I got it by going searching.

You guys just keep making off-the-cuff remarks about my clearly researched references and call them “nonsense”, “rubbish” and trash”. You keep telling me that my hypothetical suppositions are “garbage”, yet never elaborately explain why my references from Wikipedia and other places are “garbage”, if built into a pointed thought that is presented merely for the possibility of stimulating the minds of those who actually believe in other reasonable possibilities.

I was going to let this rest, but since you keep hoping that your insults will convince any real thinkers out there that I’m mad, I’m going to persevere a bit. You “regular sceptics” can drop out if you like. So what If I get no other comments? I’m not getting any appreciation for my efforts now. What would be different?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In physics, a black body is an object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. No radiation passes through it and none is reflected. It is this lack of both transmission and reflection to which the name refers. These properties make black bodies ideal sources of thermal radiation. That is, the amount and spectrum of electromagnetic radiation they emit is directly related to their temperature. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation. The "electromagnetic spectrum" of an object is the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation from that object.

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from just below the frequencies used for modern radio (at the long-wavelength end) to gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometres down to fractions of the size of an atom. In our universe the short wavelength limit is likely to be the Planck length, and the long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself (see physical cosmology), though in principle the spectrum is infinite.

Black bodies below around 700 K (430 °C/806 ⁰F) produce very little radiation at visible wavelengths and appear black. Black bodies above this temperature produce “black-body radiation at visible wavelengths starting at red, going through orange, yellow, and white before ending up at blue as the temperature increases.  (As the temperature decreases, the peak of the radiation curve moves to lower intensities and longer wavelengths. The light emitted by a black body is called “black-body radiation” and has a special place in the history of quantum mechanics.

Growth of the Earth’s inner core is thought to play an important role in the generation of Earth's magnetic field by dynamo action in the liquid outer core.

A thermodynamic system is said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal, mechanical, and chemical equilibrium, as determined by the values of its pressure, temperature, etc. Specifically, equilibrium here is characterized by the minimum of a thermodynamic potential, such as the Helmholtz free energy, i.e. systems at constant temperature and volume:  A = U – TS
Or as the Gibbs free energy, i.e. systems at constant pressure and temperature: G = H – TS

The process that leads to a thermodynamic equilibrium is called thermalization. An example of this is a system of interacting particles that is left undisturbed by outside influences. (e.g. – Our core and mantle, then waters and atmosphere). By interacting, they will share energy/momentum among themselves and reach a state where the global statistics are unchanging in time.

Thermal equilibrium is achieved when two systems in thermal contact with each other cease to exchange energy by heat.  (e.g. – at the surface of our atmosphere). If two systems are in thermal equilibrium their temperatures are the same. (e.g. – the Earth atmosphere surface temperature might be at the same (final) temperature that (actually) arrived there from the sun.)

Thermodynamics deals with equilibrium states. In an equilibrium state, there are no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces) with the system. A system that is in equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.

Sir William Gilbert was the first to define the North Magnetic Pole as the point where the Earth's magnetic field points vertically downwards. His is the definition used today.

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

The Sun is a magnetically active star. It supports a strong, changing magnetic field that varies year-to-year. The Sun's magnetic field gives rise to many effects including variations in solar wind that carry material through the Solar System. Effects of solar activity on Earth include auroras at moderate to high latitudes, and the disruption of radio communications and electric power. It also changes the structure of Earth's outer atmosphere.

If we, (the web reference source’s assumption), assume the following, we can then derive a formulaic relationship between the surface temperature of the two bodies.

1)   The Sun and the Earth radiate as spherical black bodies in thermal equilibrium with themselves.

2)    The Earth absorbs all the solar energy that it intercepts from the Sun.

A point charge is an idealized model of a particle which has an electric charge at a mathematical point with no dimensions. (e.g. - the point charge location on or near the Earth, and the point charge location on or near the sun.)

The fundamental equation of electrostatics is Coulomb's law, which describes the electric force between two point charges. The electric field associated with a classical point charge increases to infinity as the distance from the point charge decreases towards zero making energy (thus mass) of point charge infinite. In quantum electrodynamics, the mathematical method of renormalization eliminates the infinite divergence of the point charge.

Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which means homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference in a physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for some material when measured along different axes. An example is the light coming through a polarising lens.

Polarization is a property of electromagnetic waves, such as light, (including the Aurora Borealis), that describes the direction of the electric field. More generally, the polarization of a transverse wave describes the direction of oscillation in the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel. The direction of the (electric field) oscillation in electromagnetic waves is not uniquely determined by the direction of propagation. The term polarization is used to distinguish between the different directions of oscillation of electromagnetic waves propagating in the same direction.

Although it was first mentioned by Ancient Greek Pytheas, Hiorter and Celsius first described in 1741 evidence for magnetic control, namely, large magnetic fluctuations occurred whenever the aurora was observed overhead. This indicates (and it was later realized) that large electric currents were associated with the aurora, flowing in the region where auroral light originated.

Kristian Birkeland deduced that the currents flowed in the east-west directions along the auroral arc, and such currents, flowing from the dayside towards (approximately) midnight were later named "auroral electrojets" (see also Birkeland currents).

Still more evidence for a magnetic connection are the statistics of auroral observations. Elias Loomis (1860) and later in more detail Hermann Fritz (1881)established that the aurora appeared mainly in the "auroral zone", a ring-shaped region with a radius of approximately 2500 km around the magnetic pole of the earth, not its geographic one. It was hardly ever seen near that pole itself. The instantaneous distribution of auroras ("auroral oval", Yasha [or Yakov] Felds[h]tein 1963) is slightly different, centered about 3-5 degrees nightward of the magnetic pole, so that auroral arcs reach furthest towards the equator around midnight. The aurora can be seen best at this time.

Auroras are produced by the collision of charged particles, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, from the magnetosphere, with atoms and molecules of the Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km). The particles have energies from 1 - 100 keV. Most originate from the sun and arrive at the vicinity of earth in the relatively low energy solar wind.

When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with that of the earth and solar particles then enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards earth.

The collisions in the atmosphere electronically excite atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere. The excitation energy can be lost by light emission or collisions. Most aurorae are green and red emission from atomic oxygen. Molecular nitrogen and nitrogen ions produce some low level red and very high blue/violet aurorae.

Each (aurora) curtain consists of many parallel rays, each lined up with the local direction of the magnetic field lines, suggesting that aurora is shaped by the earth's magnetic field. Indeed, satellites show electrons to be guided by magnetic field lines, spiraling around them while moving earthwards.

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

Summary:

It would appear to be fairly obvious that if the magnetic influence of the sun reaches our planet from 93 million miles away, it is here to perform something more than a night time light show. It would also seem obvious that the existence and planet-surrounding shape of magnetospheres around some of the significant bodies (as in my message 139967) are doing something big, other than just creating entertainment. Maybe I’ve been trying to reason the moon’s effect into the tides like everybody else, while it’s all happening from the sun’s obviously serious levels of thermodynamic control.

We’re talking about something that keeps our whole galaxy alive here. The moon, and everything else in our galaxy might (or must) all be pawns of our sun, and I just can’t see anything making more sense than that.

Ya, ya, I know. All of this is garbage too, including my few little suppositions injected here and there, because I don’t have the actual answer, but neither does anybody else, because most seem happy with the placebo, instead of a genuine cure.

Thanks anyway, if you bothered to read this far.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #80 on: 11/12/2007 20:19:27 »
The references are not garbage as such; most of what wiki has to say is perfectly correct. It's just that they don't actually have any bearing on the matter. That one about the Northern lights is a case in point; I know what they are; I know they are real; I know people who have seen them. What could they possibly have to do with whether or not two lumps of stuff in a lab atract one-another?

"Now you’ve done it. A “short range force” is all wrong, and you know it, so I now am forced to present more from legitimate sites, only this time, you will have to find out where I got it by going searching."

Try searching this thread. I have explained at some length that electrostatic forces between uncharged objects fall as 1/R^6. Than makes them short range.
Because all magnets are dipoles the effects from them fall as 1/R^3 so they are also short range.
End of story.
Since I'm not actually "all wrong" you don't need to bother posting any more about it.

Anyway, this "It would appear to be fairly obvious that if the magnetic influence of the sun reaches our planet from 93 million miles away, it is here to perform something more than a night time light show. " is wishfull thinking on your part; there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Sure, the magnetic field reaces us, so does the one from alpha centauri, so what?

"It would also seem obvious that the existence and planet-surrounding shape of magnetospheres around some of the significant bodies (as in my message 139967) are doing something big, other than just creating entertainment."
Same thing- just because you think they must have an effect isn't good enough- you need to demonstrate an effect before you will be taken seriously.

"Maybe I’ve been trying to reason the moon’s effect into the tides like everybody else, while it’s all happening from the sun’s obviously serious levels of thermodynamic control"
Last time I checked the tides were due to a combination of the moon's and sun's effect.
If it were just the sun then the phase of the moon wouldn't affect the tides. It does. Perhaps you should check up on things like that before you post.

"We’re talking about something that keeps our whole galaxy alive here. The moon, and everything else in our galaxy might (or must) all be pawns of our sun, and I just can’t see anything making more sense than that."

You are saying that the galaxy (which is huge and contains many stars, includin the sun) is being ruled by our sun (which isn't even a very big star)and then admiting that you can't see anything making MORE sense than that.
OK that puts things in perspective.

"Ya, ya, I know. All of this is garbage too, including my few little suppositions injected here and there, because I don’t have the actual answer, but neither does anybody else, because most seem happy with the placebo, instead of a genuine cure."

At the risk of re-opening a point you never really answered before, a "cure" for what?
There don't seem to be any major problems with the current model of the universe. Saying that it's all electricity is demonstrably false (not to mention mathemetically absurd).

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.

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #81 on: 13/12/2007 23:05:30 »
The fact that electromagnetic forces exist and have relatively small effects in the solar system and beyond is not in dispute.  You wish to suggest that these effects take the place of the normally accepted gravitational, linear and angular momentum based forces  that have been shown to accurately describe the operation of the universe for hundreds of years.  A few small and simple calculations will show that this is rediculous go away and do the calculations.

#### socratus

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 329
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #82 on: 15/12/2007 14:09:57 »
Hi;

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡

Scientific advancement is fundamentally an effort to improve our understanding, and virtually every early discovery has been changed, corrected, or debunked over the ages. Our modern technology is well equipped to investigate other possibilities, and I seriously contend, that it is time we made the effort to prove that even genius can be wrong. Albert Einstein called his Cosmological Constant theory, “the greatest blunder of his life”, but with the discovery of Negative Pressure, he seems to have been proven to be correct.

Respectfully, I must say, that all humans each theorize based upon our observations, our understanding, and our always incomplete absolute knowledge. All of the above is only a theory, constructed from the components with which I have seemingly been cursed to dream.

fleep

===========================
My opinion about gravitation particles and star formation.
============.
We supposed that graviton particles:
a)
Theoretically predicted but never observed ( a hypothetical
particle ) with no electric charge and no mass is supposed
to be responsible for the gravitational interaction between
matter and energy.

A hypothetical elementary particle is responsible
for the effects of gravity (the quantum of gravitation ).
It means, that the initial gravitational mass of stars
and planets is created from gravitation particles .

Nobody knows :
“What geometrical and physical parameters
can gravitation particle have ?”
The Einstein’s GRT doesn’t explain
which particles create a gravitation field.
I will try to explain it.
======.
1.
Where has the first material gravitation particle appeared
from ?

Now it is considered, that reference frame which
is connected with relict isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K.

Therefore the gravitation particle can appears from
Nothing, from Vacuum, from Absolute Zero: T=0K?

Let us take some area of Vacuum (T=0K)
and mark it with letter R.
The number of particles in this area of Vacuum
we will mark with letter N.
Then every particle of this area has
gravity/ mass of rest: R/N= k.
2.
Can they have volume?"
No.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
disappears. The physicists say, if the particle
has completely lost its volume
the physical parameters of particles become infinite.
"Law of conservation and transformation energy".
And then we must understand that the sense of the
"Law of conservation and transformation energy" is.
We should understand and accept that
when volume of the particles disappears
they become "indefinitely flat figures ".
What do "indefinitely flat figures " mean?
They mean, that we cannot reach Absolute Vacuum T=0K
and we also cannot reach density of the particle in the T=0K.
The “ Charles law” was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
These " flat figures " have the geometrical form
of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most
optimal form: C/D= pi = 3,14.

These R/N= k particles are initial gravitational particles.
============.

Which is common condition of gravitation?
1.
Let us suppose that in some local sphere of Vacuum
the quantity of the passive particles ( k) that is equal to
the number Avogadro N was found.
Then according to the principle of Boltzmann,
the gathering of the particles in some local sphere of Vacuum
has a probable basis: S= klnW.
It is common condition of gravitation.
================.

How did from these gravitation particles (k )
the first material particles appear ?

1.
The first material particles was called “helium”, because
helium exist very – very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Nobody knows what helium is.( !)
Why?
Because the behavior of helium is absolutely different
from all another elements of Nature. ( !)
!!!!
I will try to explain, how the helium
was created from R/N=k.
2.
The helium exist very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Therefore we must take in attention the processes
of superfluids and superconductors , which require extremely
low temperatures , approximately 0K.
3.
Then , the first particles which were created
from R/N =k could be helium II ( He II ),
which created temperature 2,7K.
4.
Then , the second particles which were created
from helium II ( He II ), could be helium I ( He I ),
which created temperature 4,2K.
/ Kapitza / Landau theory./
5.
And then all the system comes to rotary movement.
But helium rotates differently from all other liquids.
If one rotates helium very strongly, it starts to behave not
as liquid
but as elastic body
(experience of E.L. Ŕndronikashvili. /Georgia./ ).
Separate layers of helium become elastic ropes that change
the picture of quiet uniform rotation completely.
In such rotation sharp friction between different
layers of the liquid originates. From rotary elastic ropes
the slices of substance of various size come off.
Further they break to particles that received
the names of Helium-three 3He and Helium-four 4He.
The common thermal temperature in liquid increases .

Rotation and collision of the particles 3He and 4He at some
stage leads to their further crush to small particles, that
the name of the nucleus of hydrogen atom- proton (p).
Protons are initial, the smallest, material particles.

The most widespread elements in stars are helium and
hydrogen.
Our Sun consists of helium to 30% and of hydrogen to 69%.
Ii was found that in external layers of our Sun on 1kg of
hydrogen
it was necessary 270g of helium. In deeper layers on 1kg of
hydrogen
it is necessary 590g of helium.
Thus it is deeper into Sun it is more helium.
And in the central area of Sun helium-II, helium-I are found.
The reaction between (k ) , helium and
hydrogen go basically on the Sun.
All the elements of the material substance
are created from the initial particles (k) and helium.
==============.

How does all the system come to rotary movement ?

1.
If gravitation-particles fly to different sides,
they can not create the initial gravitational mass of
planets, stars.
It means, that any unknown power collects the gravitation
particles together and gives to them the movement in one
direction.
As a result of this common movement of all gravitation
particles (k ) in one direction the initial gravitational
mass
of planets and stars is created.
What power can gather all particles together?
2.
Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K the motion
of particles stops, and the energy of Vacuum is equal to
zero.
The quantum physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K there is
motion of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is not zero.
Therefore, let us take some energy area of Vacuum and
mark it with letter E.
The mass of this energy area of Vacuum we will
mark with letter M.
Then every particle of this area has energy/mass of rest:
E/M= c^2, ( E=Mc^2, M=Ec^2.)
3.
As this particle is in the state of rest condition
it impulse is equal to zero ( h=0).
4.
But this particle can change its state of rest condition.
If the particle has impulse of Goudsmit -Uhlenbeck h= h/2pi,
its energy will be: E=hw
The thermal balance of Vacuum will be disturbed.
The actively rotating particle with energy E=hw gibes the
movement of surrounding passive particles R/N=k and
a gravitational field begins to create.
And the source of a gravitational field is an active electron
E=hw.
The remaining particles R/N=k are passive participants
(victims) of the creating gravitation field.
============.
The stars are formed by the scheme:
e- --k --He II-- He I --rotating He--thermonuclear reaction –
р…
The Second law of thermodynamics doesn’t forbid this process.
======================.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #83 on: 15/12/2007 18:40:31 »
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

No it won't, reaching absolute zero is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyway the origins of garvity must have happened long go when the temperature was much higher.

Classical physics says the temperature of a vacuum is undefined- how can you talk about the mean energy of the particles whaen there aren't any?

#### socratus

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 329
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #84 on: 16/12/2007 07:35:51 »
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

No it won't, reaching absolute zero is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyway the origins of garvity must have happened long go when the temperature was much higher.

Classical physics says the temperature of a vacuum is undefined- how can you talk about the mean energy of the particles whaen there aren't any?
==============================================
Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.
Quamtun physics says that in a " Hawking space "
a " virtual" particles must exist.
Astronomers say about " dark particles " ......
it means that must be ......" quant of darkness ".
And there are cosmolodists that say that the observed
Universe could have evolved from nothing / A. Guth/.

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #85 on: 16/12/2007 21:32:44 »
Hi folks;

While I am not averse to listening to criticisms of my hypotheses, gentlemen, might I politely ask that the theory of the “graviton” itself be conducted in a forum under only that subject title? As a specifically singular topic, I believe the moderators are generally inclined to move things to more appropriate forums than the ones we ourselves select, and this appears to be such a case. Apologies and thanks anyway for your consideration in participating within my efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent verification of some of the spatial happenings of electricity found in my hypotheses can be read at:  http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/lightning/
(Note that the source is from the U.K.)

===============================================================================================================
Now.  You guys keep trying to re-paint the room while the house is burning.

BC last said: “I have explained at some length that electrostatic forces between uncharged objects fall as 1/R^6. That makes them short range. Because all magnets are dipoles the effects from them fall as 1/R^3 so they are also short range. End of story.”

The Earth and the Sun are charged objects. They are not “uncharged” as you keep insisting. If all matter is positive, then everything made of it is positively charged in its natural form. If gravity is a “force” which is alleged to perform work at distant points, then it has to be a positive force. If matter was elementally negative, it could not attract or repel anything, because it could then not be a force at all. If matter is neutral, it would thus be amenable to sharing interchanges between itself and any known physical forms of energy. Why does this make sense, or does it not, and why not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onwards to Wiki -Being one of the four fundamental forces of nature, it is useful to compare the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field. The word 'force' is sometimes replaced by 'interaction'. (They use ‘interaction’ realizing that ‘force’ cannot go anywhere without energy, such as with a photon.)

Electromagnetic and gravitational fields

The solar dynamo is the physical process that generates the Sun's magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field (and the surface magnetic field) is approximately a magnetic dipole, with one pole near the north pole (see Magnetic North Pole) and the other near the geographic south pole (see Magnetic South Pole).

Sources of electromagnetic fields consist of two types of charge - positive and negative. This contrasts with the sources of the gravitational field, which are masses. Masses are sometimes described as gravitational charges, the important feature of them being that there is only one type (no negative masses), or, in more colloquial terms, 'gravity is always attractive'. (Or, ‘positive’, if speaking in electrical terms, since elemental matter in its normal state is positively charged at the nucleic scale, thus excluding the electrons, which are externally-based for purposes of covalence, etc.)

The relative strengths and ranges of the interactions and other information are tabulated below:

Theory                        Interaction       Mediator   Relative Magnitude    Behaviour   Range

Electrodynamics   -          Electromagnetic  - photon             10 36          1/r2        infinite
Geometrodynamics  -            Gravitation    - graviton           10 0           1/r2        infinite

Gravity has an order of magnitude that is many times less than electromagnetic “interaction”, and gravity has only a highly challenged hypothetical means of being able to do work over any distance at all. (Read the entire description of “graviton” in Wiki, including all the problems with the hypothesis).

The potential energy between charged objects is called ‘voltage’ and current is the movement of charge. The workings inside the Earth and the Sun are often comparatively called ‘dynamos’ in scientific texts. Both are “charged objects”, and the internal dynamos are the voltage sources that initiate the connection between them – (you know all this up to here), - through the spatial currents and the magnetosphere’s contribution as a “transformer”. The electromagnetic connection completes the circuit, and the pressure moves our tides. (But you won’t consider the possibilities beyond what you know, even though Wiki explains the logic of its possibility.)

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

174.0 PW  = the total power received by the Earth from the Sun. (10 15 watts X 174)

A positive pressure is required to push the energy in a conductor through the negative pressure of space; otherwise, nothing can be an energy form that will force the current to be conveyed to where the ‘work’ is to be done. If there was no pressure, (such as a potential difference or an electromotive force), there would be no current to move the electrons. The solar wind is a motivational pressure.

The sun and the Earth allegedly contain massive (different) amounts of gravitational “force”, (a ‘potential’), that should be motivating a flow of ‘gravitons’ in both directions, (since gravity is alleged to be mutually attractive between masses), but a ‘force’ just goes nowhere by itself. The math for gravity simply had to be created to reach across all spatial “gaps”, or gravity itself would not meet Newton’s own 3rd Law.

Your repeated allegation that the elemental bodies involved (and everything on them) are “uncharged” is repeatedly untrue. The reason for magnetospheres is apparently to act as ‘connectors/switchboards’ for incoming solar electromagnetic energy. The connecting currents between the Earth and the Sun must be changing the polarity at our magnetosphere, thus creating an “attractive” effect between the two bodies. The tides are thus “pulled” along below the moon as it advances around the planet. Gravity cannot ‘pull’, because it has no proven energy connection.

The ‘magneto-tail’ curls back behind the Earth to ensure an identical 3rd Law performance of the tides on the opposite (night) side of the Earth.

Please look here, at the models (or print them to work on) of the Spring and Neap tides, but remove their arrows and try my version below to explain them, instead of just assuming that gravity has any role at all: (The sun is shining from the left in both models).

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/tides.html

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/

Spring Tides -When the moon is directly between the Earth and the sun, the high (Spring) tides rise behind the moon because the sun-Earth’s space-based ring current is blocked from reaching our magnetosphere, and glances off the moon in the direction of our poles. The result is that the magnetosphere expands outward towards the blocking moon, and the normally magnetosphere-induced pull on the ocean behind the moon is relieved, so the tide on the sun side of the earth follows the magnetosphere outwards, and the tide rises in the direction of the moon (and sun). The high tide also rises on the dark side behind the planet, directly opposite from the point at which the sun is blocked by the moon. The reason for this is that the magneto-tail curls back toward the Earth on the dark side, duplicating the frontal (magnetosphere-relieving) effect and fulfilling the 3rd Law. The magnetosphere is obviously involved in the tidal process, and the magneto-tail is obligated by the 3rd Law to perform the same effects at its opposite point(s).

Neap Tides -When the moon is not blocking the sun in any way, both the side directly facing the sun and the opposite side facing directly away from the sun, are exhibiting the low (Neap) tides. Since the magnetosphere is closer to Earth and not abnormally expanded outward towards a blocking moon, the oceans are not pulled out as far towards the sun. In all cases, dipole conversions, wherever they might occur in the electromagnetic link system between the sun and the earth, are handled by the magnetosphere. It is a ’switchboard’ that makes the sun’s electromagnetism arrive at our planet in the correct polar position to cause the attractive effect. Again, on the dark side, the magneto-tail is duplicating the direct sun’s “electrical sequence”, and curling the identically low pulling effect back onto the dark side of the planet.

In all cases, dipole magnets, wherever they might occur in the electromagnetic link system between the sun and the earth, are handled by the magnetosphere. It is a ’switchboard’ that makes the sun’s electromagnetism origin arrive at our ocean surfaces and pull the tides to the degree that we witness.

In electrostatics, the charges are stationary, whereas in magnetostatics, the currents are stationary. Magnetostatics is a good approximation even when the currents are not static as long as the currents do not alternate rapidly.

Lightning is an electrostatic discharge that could not travel through our atmosphere if our atmosphere was an electrostatic/stationary medium.  So, our atmosphere is host to the magnetostatic stationary currents that maintain contact with the magnetosphere along those stationary currents’ “lines.”

Earth’s non-stationary electromagnetic charge is constantly reaching out to the magnetosphere and connecting to a stationary magnetostatic ring current that extends all the way to the non-stationary electromagnetic point-charge at the sun’s end of the circuit.

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

And that is how I see the motion of the tides, and thus, very likely, an amazing host of other happenings out there, which are attributed to a “force” that has no legs, at all.

This might not be expertly explained, and there might be an error(s) in succession logic, but I can be sure that if anybody even tries to examine my hypothesis diligently, my mistake(s) will be pointed out to me.

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #86 on: 16/12/2007 22:26:24 »
"The Earth and the Sun are charged objects. They are not “uncharged” as you keep insisting"

Bollocks; they are connected together by the solar wind which is ionised enough to be a conductor.
I keep insisting on this because it's true. Do you not understand that idea?

"If all matter is positive, then everything made of it is positively charged in its natural form."
Half of it isn't positive, so it baances out for objects like the sun and earth.

"If gravity is a “force” which is alleged to perform work at distant points, then it has to be a positive force. "
Positive charge and positive forces have nothing to do with each other. This is just muddleed thinking. Please learn some physics.

"If matter was elementally negative, it could not attract or repel anything, because it could then not be a force at all."
Demonstrably false - look at a negatively charged electroscope sometime.

" If matter is neutral, it would thus be amenable to sharing interchanges between itself and any known physical forms of energy. Why does this make sense, or does it not, and why not?
"
Partly it doesn't make sense because it mixes up several differeent ideas but mainly it doesn't make sense because it ignores gravity. Accepting it as axiomatic would be begging the question. If you think it's true then prove it with some evidence rather than just boldly asserting it.

Learn some electrostatics. Positive charges repel positive charges and atract negative ones. Similarly negative charges atract positive ones and repel negative ones.
That makes statements like this "(Or, ‘positive’, if speaking in electrical terms, since elemental matter in its normal state is positively charged at the nucleic scale, thus excluding the electrons, which are externally-based for purposes of covalence, etc.)" complete nonsense.

The forces produced by ring currents and radiation pressure are small, far too small to explain the tides. They are also affected by the sunspots etc; the tides are not so they cannot cause the tides.

"This might not be expertly explained, and there might be an error(s) in succession logic, but I can be sure that if anybody even tries to examine my hypothesis diligently, my mistake(s) will be pointed out to me."
Your error is that you keep ignoring established facts like the short range of electrostatic forces between neutral objects and the fact that the sun and earth are such objects. You also cite the very evidence that shows you are wrong  yet claim that it supports your view.
The only reason Gravity can hold the earth in orbit is that , unlike the electrostatic effect, it doesn't get cancelled out by the equivalent of a negative charge (an object with negative mass. It's right there in the Wiki article. "Masses are sometimes described as gravitational charges, the important feature of them being that there is only one type (no negative masses), or, in more colloquial terms, 'gravity is always attractive'."
Then you throw in muddled ideas like the energy that reaches us from the sun; it gets here by electromagnetic radiation; nothing to do with gravity and it doesn't have any problem traveling through a vacuum (have a look at a light bulb sometime- a sodium lamp streetlight would be a particularly good example here). There's a tremendous amount of energy transfered but it has nothing to do with the question. If the sun went cold and dark we would still stay in orbit while we froze.
The other thing you seem to do a lot is bring in meaningless phrases like "electrostatic/stationary medium."
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.

And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)

#### socratus

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 329
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #87 on: 18/12/2007 18:14:02 »

And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)
=========================
What geometrical and physical parameters can
particles have in a " Hawking,s space "
or in the space T=2,7K ?

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #88 on: 19/12/2007 18:18:57 »
I can't find any meaningful description of what "Hawking's space" is. Did you make it up?
Anyway, this is still in the wrong thread.

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #89 on: 20/12/2007 18:17:52 »
Hi:

Back in my messg 146035, I said;

The potential energy between charged objects is called ‘voltage’ and current is the movement of charge. The workings inside the Earth and the Sun are often comparatively called ‘dynamos’ in scientific texts. Both are “charged objects”, and the internal dynamos are the voltage sources that initiate the connection between them – (you know all this up to here), - through the spatial currents and the magnetosphere’s contribution as a “transformer”. The electromagnetic connection completes the circuit, and the pressure moves our tides. (But you won’t consider the possibilities beyond what you know, even though Wiki explains the logic of its possibility.)

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

174.0 PW  = the total power received by the Earth from the Sun. (10 15 watts X 174)

A positive pressure is required to push the energy in a conductor through the negative pressure of space; otherwise, nothing can be an energy form that will force the current to be conveyed to where the ‘work’ is to be done. If there was no pressure, (such as a potential difference or an electromotive force), there would be no current to move the electrons. The solar wind is a motivational pressure.

BC said: "The forces produced by ring currents and radiation pressure are small, far too small to explain the tides."

I have a question for you. Please clearly explain to me how even a portion of the enormous  energy that is leaving the sun and  being conveyed to the Earth through the interstellar medium by the solar winds and/or the ring currents, accomplishes the fulfilment of Newton's 3rd Law, if the energy handed over to our own planet is not identical to the amount of energy that left the sun?

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #90 on: 21/12/2007 17:21:41 »
That enormous amount of energy is indeed carried from the sun to the earth and I never said it wasn't.
Since it is carried as radiation rather than ring currents the force it carries is small. (and for the record, it pushes the earth away from the sun so it cannot possibly contribute to the force that holds the earth in orbit).
The forces due to ring currents are too small to explain the tides or the orbit of the earth.

As for "Both are “charged objects”" re the sun and earth.
No, they still aren't. Stop lying about it.

Since it is based on a false premise, there's no suprise that your conjecture that this charge (which doesn't exist) gives rise to the tides is also wrong.

Just for a change lets imagine what would have happened if a scientist had come up with the idea that the force that holds the earth in orbit round the sun was electrostatic.
He would have wanted to see if his idea was consistent with the known rules of physics.
Perhaps the first thing he would have to do would be to work out how big the force would need to be. That's straightforward mechanics- you can find the equation all over the place.
For a body moving in a circle the force required to stop it flying off in a line is

F = M ω2 r
Where M is the earths mass, ω is the angular frequency of the rotation and r is the radius of the circle.
This gives us a potential problem, how do we measure M?
Well most of the earth is covered by water and, since the water is floating we can say the earth must be denser than water. On the other hand we know that elements much denser than water like lead, gold and mercury are rare and even the densest materials are only about 20 times denser than water.
Thus we know the density of the earth is somewhere between 1 and 20 times denser than water, probably closer to 1 than 20 so I will chose 5 (pretty arbitrary but I'm not looking for the world's greatest accuracy).
We know how big the earth is so we can calculate the mass from the product of the density and the volume.
the volume is 4/3 pi r3
1.32 E 21 cubic metres and, with a density of 5000 Kg/m3 we can calculate a mass of 6.5E24 Kg

OK the other terms are relatively simple because we can just look them up.

So the force attracting the earth to the sun is about 3.5E22 Newtons (that's a lot of force)

If this force is electrostatic in nature it implies that there are charges on the sun and earth. It can't tell us which is positive or even how much of the overall charge is on each item. It can tell us what the product of the 2 charges would need to be in order to crate this big a force.
It's Coulomb's equation

f=1/4pi εo Q1 Q2 /R2 =3.5E22
We can solve that for the product of the 2 charges since we know the constant term there is 8.988E9 and get Q1Q2=9E30
Now it's difficult to say just how much of the charge is on the sun vs how much is on the earth but lets make the assumption that they are balanced overall and so the 2 charges are the same.
That means each body has a charge equal to the square root of the value calculated there.
The charge would need to be about 3E15 Coulombs.
OK is that plausible?
Well the more charge you put on a conductor the higher the potential gets.
PD=Q/C
We can calculate the capacitance of the earth as being an isolated conducting sphere. That's a pretty standard exercise and the result is 710E-6 F (from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance if anyone wants to check.

If you calculate the potential you get a value about  4E18 volts

That means that an electron from, for example, the sun would accelerate towards the earth and, on it's journey, it would pick up about 4E18 eV of energy. That's more than practically any of the cosmic rays hit us with. Also the available current would be huge because the Sun's not short of electrons. We would be pounded by a vast current of these ultra high energy particles until the charge was lost.

(If the earth were -ve charged we would get hit by high energy protons from the sun instead- the effect would be the same.)

Any competent scientist would now say that the hypothesis leads to a predicted outcome- (a huge pounding that would strip most of the atmosphere off and blast the earth's surface)- which simply isn't observed in reality. So any competent scientist would reject the postulate.
It remains to be seen if Fleep will stick to this plainly false idea

« Last Edit: 21/12/2007 19:44:00 by Bored chemist »

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #91 on: 21/12/2007 19:00:24 »
Hi BC;

All right. I will accept that you are evading the primary question, but you did say this:

"That enormous amount of energy is indeed carried from the sun to the earth and I never siad it wasn't. Since it is carried as radiation rather than ring currents the force it carries is small. (and for the record, it pushes the earth away from the sun so it cannot possibly contribute to the force that holds the earth in orbit)".

Your concession that it "pushes the Earth away from the sun" was a surprise to me. Of course you realize that if the Earth is contained in the interstellar medium like everything else in our galaxy, it is thus surrounded (globally) by the 'pushing' (your word) pressures of its orbital retainment, as is every other orbiting/non-falling body in the galaxy. This declares that all contained bodies and atmospheres are globally contained, and thus, are 'closed vessels', so they are subject to Pascal's Law:

"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".

Whether you agree or not, this sustained global radiation pressure on each contained body is also a delivery of standing energy, with the work being performed upon those bodies. Because this is real work being done constantly, there is an automatic demand for an equal and opposite reaction, everywhere within the galaxy. All sustained global pressures are mandatorily fulfilling the 3rd Law by equally returning the parent force of the sun from every surface and being sutained as an opposite force in the sun's direction.

In case we have no further correspondence before Christmas...

I have no way of knowing the belief systems of all who contribute here, so I hope no one is offended if I extend our season's greetings in the traditional fashion of the way I was raised. May you all have a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #92 on: 21/12/2007 20:05:57 »
I'm conceding a rather small point- the radiation pressure from the sun  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
exerts a force of about 30 E6 Newtons on the earth. The force requred to keep it in orbit is about 3.5E22 Newtons or about 1000000000000000 times bigger.
That's why I say that radiation pressure is too small to matter.
The effect of the solar wind is about 5000 times smaller still.
Why do you keep bringing up these tiny effects when what we are looking for is the 3.5E22 Newtons that keeps the planet in orbit?
"Please clearly explain to me how even a portion of the enormous  energy that is leaving the sun and  being conveyed to the Earth through the interstellar medium by the solar winds and/or the ring currents, "....
Well, since the energy is no more carried by the ring currents than it is by horses and carts I can't see what answer I could give other than saying it's carried by radiation.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2007 20:12:15 by Bored chemist »

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #93 on: 04/01/2008 02:25:51 »
Happy New Year folks.

Let's try something different.

Science and Earth's Weather

(Regarding the modern practice of using “the theory of gravitation” as a “Standard”)

1) All weather events, like everything else in nature, are formed in the alleged presence of a theoretically-attractive force.

2) All weather events are formed beneath the atmospheric pressure that weighs vertically downward in any (model) column that one might wish to construct for virtual study.

3) In case an “attraction factor” somehow matters; concave fluid/gas surfaces show a meniscus, and convex fluid/gas surfaces show an “inverted meniscus”. These differences are theoretically attributed to “attraction” to their containers.

We know the following to be factual in the consideration of “constant atmospheric actions”:

1)   Any/all hot fluids rise to the top of cold fluids.
2)   Any/all hot gases rise to the top of cold gases.
3)   Such actions demand an equal and opposite reaction, as do all adjacent actions, in their turn.
4)   These variegated possibilities are constant under any temperature change or influence.
5)   All of these are related to functions of known forms of energy.

All we know, is that any vertically weight-controlled atmospheric pressure influence will-

1)   make any (heated) fluid /gas column rise to the top, above its vertically-relative cold proportion.
2)   become an influential cause of another adjacent action.

These points are relatively common knowledge, but are recorded here simply to bring them all together; possibly to view their relativities in a way that might be seldom considered.

(Off the cuff-) Hypothetically, the veracity of weather forecasting could, (and might already be being done), be improved by the ongoing projection of the 3rd Law, as continuously measured from the ever-changing center of an approaching system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main point of conclusion here is about “Global Warming”, which is entirely related to events whose results are displayed within the functions of the oceans and our atmosphere. None of the effects so far have been attributed to changes that might be taking place in the most “fundamental theory” that is held by science. Where does “gravitation” fit into all the energy-related things that are occurring in Global Warming? (‘Gravity’ does not even have a proven and recognized energy-transfer system that can be included in the explanation of weather-related events).

Some of us have heard of nothing new in the study of gravity, nor in its association with the events of Global Warming. Does that not seem odd to anyone? It would appear that the known, proven, familiar forms of energy are hard at work here, all by themselves. Where is gravity?

Thanks.

fleep

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #94 on: 04/01/2008 09:30:11 »
The gravity is the reason that hot air rises ie it is less dense than its surrounding cold air.  Without gravity this just would not happen and has been demonstrated using flames in orbiting spaceships or microgravity aircraft flights.  This is just as good an argument against your interminally presented rubbish about gravity being an electromagnetic process.

See below for a picture of a flame in zero gravity where hot air does not rise

« Last Edit: 04/01/2008 09:37:45 by Soul Surfer »

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #95 on: 04/01/2008 12:14:52 »
Once again I find myself wondering, how can you define "rise" (as in hot air rises) unless there's an "up" and a "down", and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different?

"Some of us have heard of nothing new in the study of gravity, nor in its association with the events of Global Warming. Does that not seem odd to anyone? "
No, it doesn't seem odd, I haven't heard anything new about gravity and current fashion in popular culture or the colour of cat's fur either. That's because they don't have anything to do with gravity.
Global warming is generally thought to be due to changes in how electromagnetic energy (IR radiation) is transferred through the atmosphere, in particular how adding something to the air that absorbs radiation will increase the nett heat transfered from the sun.
Gravity has nothing to do with it.
Weather is driven largely by convection currents and they rely on gravity. As soul surfer pointed out, the weather is evidence in favour of gravity in spite of your bizzare insistance that it doesn't exist.

BTW, since the maths shows it cannot possibly be any electromagnetic effect that keeps the earth in orbit round the sun and it clearly can't be any of the short range forces like the nuclear ones, perhaps you would like to say what holds the earth in orbit if you don't think it's gravity?

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #96 on: 04/01/2008 12:38:16 »
Wow! Sometimes you old gravity diehards just run out of imagination. What's with showing me pictures of newly discovered ways of viewing flames in space and telling me it's about "gravity"? So what if that's how it was reported by an esteemed space agency that has not yet come to terms with how spatial events and effects might be better explained since Negative Pressure was discovered in 2005?

Negative Pressure is universal. Look at something from a different possibility for a change.

Could it possibly be, in the "space flame" example, that if flames burn both on Earth and in space, the common enabler would be a universal backdrop? Gravity isn't a "backdrop" that explains what's happening. It's an "attractive force", according to Newton and his sheep. In what possible way can anyone ever explain that "attraction" is a reason why flames look different in two different places? That isn't even logical!

I put more faith in the Genius of Einstein (and his Cosmological CONSTANTthan I do in all the stagnant technology in the world. I realize that Science has to maintain a public front as it delves quietly behind the scenes of conventional belief. They are working at it.  But, if gravity diehards don't start examining things from greater perspectives and new possibilities, you might all wake up one morning in the not-too-distant future, (I expect), and spew your coffee on the headlines of your morning paper, which has suddenly pulled down the trousers of the ancients.

Thanks

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8591
• Thanked: 41 times
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #97 on: 04/01/2008 16:16:30 »
Fleep, you seem to have missed the problem with defining "up and "down" without gravity and also this bit "BTW, since the maths shows it cannot possibly be any electromagnetic effect that keeps the earth in orbit round the sun and it clearly can't be any of the short range forces like the nuclear ones, perhaps you would like to say what holds the earth in orbit if you don't think it's gravity?"
Could you provide us with an answer rather than a rant please?

#### fleep

• Full Member
• Posts: 65
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #98 on: 04/01/2008 21:01:12 »
Hi again;

BC said: “Once again I find myself wondering, how can you define "rise" (as in hot air rises) unless there's an "up" and a "down", and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different? “

Why do I have to be the one to explain that “up” or “down” need no explaining, particularly in the context of trying to defend a (gravity) theory that I think might be wrong?

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

The “viewpoint of the observer” is not my creation, but it makes all the sense in the world.

Here’s the thing: ‘Up’ and ‘down’ are commonly necessary specific terms of convenience, simply for the function of supporting a relevant mutual interpretation. They differ in grammatical context from ‘back and forth’, which are generalities, but neither would matter in space, but on Earth; “ah; there’s the rub.” We all are looking at up and down as if we are all in a standing position at all times and locations on the planet. We cannot “stand” in space.

So to answer the first question, the answer is obvious. We need words to express our common view of vertical directions. The word “rise” is required to identify which vertical direction we are referring to, on the vertical (up/down) plane. The other word could be “fall”.

So.  If directions are simply terms of facilitating a common human understanding, then “up” and “down” are not any different on Earth than they are in space, but we are practical people, and that recognition would be unworkable.

Now – to the “meat” part of your question:

“...and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different?”

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

The differences in the falling behaviour of objects that fall from inside Earth’s atmosphere and what occurs when objects fall through space are obviously completely relative to nothing but the presence (and nature) of “impediments” in the (any-directional) plane of the object. The “impediments” can be widely different in quantity, mass, density, (and in the case of energy forms), strength and velocity, etc., etc., but, we have constructed this satisfactory math to match theoretical assumptions, so now we are complacent, because it serves our purposes, in a mechanical sort of way.

Our (apparent) complacency has squelched the active encouragement of the student imagination to look for known/proven energy possibilities that produce the same answers that our successfully tailor-made math equations have done for us.

Why is this even important? We know how to plot and accomplish space missions. Everything seems to be working pretty well. Why try to fix it?

It’s now pretty late in the survival game to go rushing for new answers for what already works, but what if we found that much of what we have been attributing to ‘gravity’ is really occurring through the auspices of spatial electricity, and/or some other combination of weakly studied subject matters out there? We already know how to do all of the math related to electricity, and we know that it has become extremely refined; not as a theory, but as a reliable set of tools that are “energy-based”, unlike gravity, which has no energy attached to it. Coulomb and Tesla should have you wondering.

What if we did find something significant? Keep calling it “gravity” if you like, but for the sake of human survival, we should not ever become entrenched in the habitual. The high stakes are in the process of breaking all the banks, possible in less than twenty years, by some estimates.

Maybe the electrical switchboards and the grid have not yet been nailed down, but new discoveries are happening at a rapid pace these days, in case you haven’t been watching magazines like Nature, and Astronomy.

As for your last question; don’t look to me to tell you what keeps the Earth in orbit when science itself is not sure enough of its own library of studies of gravity to declare it no longer a theory.

Thanks
fleep

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #99 on: 05/01/2008 00:16:16 »
You are "Barking mad" fleep.  If you fly an aircraft from a high gravity turn to a zero gravity parabola you can easily film a flame changing from normal to zero g. your physics is completely wrong and I fail to see why you persist with such a stupid idea.  The only reason that I can think is that you enjoy looking a fool and getting angry responses like this!

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #99 on: 05/01/2008 00:16:16 »