The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity Problem Solved  (Read 48158 times)

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #25 on: 04/09/2008 10:54:59 »
I repeat the crucial question:

                     WHY IS THE MOON MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH??
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #26 on: 04/09/2008 12:32:17 »
From Wikipedia...
>Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the ocean bulge nearest the Moon affects its orbit. The Earth rotates on its axis in the very same direction, and roughly 27 times faster, than the Moon orbits the Earth. Thus, frictional coupling between the sea floors and ocean waters, as well as water’s inertia, drags the peak of the near-Moon tidal bulge slightly forward of the imaginary line connecting the centers of the Earth and Moon. From the Moon’s perspective, the center of mass of the near-Moon tidal bulge is perpetually slightly ahead of the point about which it is orbiting. Precisely the opposite effect occurs with the bulge farthest from the Moon; it lags behind the imaginary line. However it is 12,756 km farther away and has slightly less gravitational coupling to the Moon. Consequently, the Moon is constantly being gravitationally attracted forward in its orbit about the Earth. This gravitational coupling drains kinetic energy and angular momentum from the Earth’s rotation (see also, Day and Leap second). In turn, angular momentum is added to the Moon’s orbit, which lifts the Moon into a higher orbit with a longer period. The effect on the Moon’s orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 ppb/year, but results in a measurable 3.82 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance.[50] Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since when astronauts first landed on the Moon approximately 39 years ago, it is now 1.49 metres farther away.
>

This seems a reasonable explanation to me. I have no doubt there are distortions to the earth's crust too but I have yet to see any evidence for abandoning our current understanding based on Newtonian mechanics. It is a very good approximation to GR for this sort of problem.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #27 on: 04/09/2008 14:34:37 »
The Wiki expanation is completely wishy-washy and could have been written by anyone. Do you have a more convincing reference?

Just because the Earth is rotating doesn't mean that the Moon will increase it's angular momentum.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #28 on: 04/09/2008 14:48:13 »
Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

My explanation is that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the matter is orientationally mixed at a quark level giving a net field of zero.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #29 on: 04/09/2008 16:30:49 »
What?? Everyday objects do attract each other. It is just that G*m1*m2/r^2 is such a small value that it is very hard to measure. It has been done though. I think the earliest was in 1798. Here is a description of the experiment...

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #30 on: 04/09/2008 16:39:58 »
The Wiki explanation is quite good without resorting to maths. Because the tidal bulge nearest the moon is slightly ahead of the moon, there is an additional gravitational vector from this bulge which is pulling the moon in the direction of the earth's rotation, which happens also to be the direction in which the moon is moving. The moon is being accelerated very slightly by this force and so increasing its orbital height. The force from the bulge on the other side of the earth will work in opposition but is an earth diameter further away. The net force is accelerating the moon.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #31 on: 04/09/2008 16:44:28 »
"My explanation is that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the matter is orientationally mixed at a quark level giving a net field of zero."

And here speaks a man who complains about wishy washy explanations. Concatenating as many big words as possible doesn't justify any theory.
There is plenty of evidence about the relative timings of the Ocean tides and the position of the Moon in its orbit. The lag is clearly there and explains the increase in the Moon's speed due to conservation of momentum. (No posh words - except for "momentum", which has been a concept for hundreds of years). Presumably common-sense acknowledges and understands the concepts of momentum and angular momentum? I wonder about his understanding of quarks, though.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #32 on: 04/09/2008 18:59:53 »
I'm certainly not quaking in my boots about Bored chemist's credentials. If you are so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from us?? Sir Isaac Newton would have us believe that it would eventually coalesce with the Earth, just as my old physics teacher said all those years ago. WRONG.
Well, The only thing I agree with is that nobody should be swayed by anyone's credentials.
Newton, as it happens was pretty much right about this (Einstein was closer, but the elativistic effects are tiny).
Your physics teacher was wrong. I take it you were not too bothered about his credentials.

The wiki explanation is perfectly clear to me. If you don't understand it that's your problem.

A theory (whether it's a wishy washy one, or one that strings random long words together) which predicts that the highest tides will be on the wrong side of the continent is wrong.
There's no nice way to dael with this the theory is dead. It will never be resurected.
Grieve for it briefly; then forget it.

BTW, Richmond is only a few metres above sea level.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #33 on: 04/09/2008 22:36:35 »
Quote
BTW, Richmond is only a few metres above sea level.
I saw a drowned car on the slipway, once at high tide, which proves it.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #34 on: 05/09/2008 00:20:26 »
common_sense_seeker:  you are like someone who pretends to be blind so that you can feel clever because you have tricked people in to offering to help you cross the road.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #35 on: 05/09/2008 10:46:23 »
I assume you all saw Prof Brain Cox last night on BBC 4 about the LHC start-up on 10th September. The Higgs Boson has a ZER0% chance of being found. I bet you're into a Higgs Field type scenario, aren't you? Just wait and see, that's all I'm saying.

My explanation is that gravity is more like Magnetism, or that Magnetism is just 'lumpy' gravity. The STRONG gravitational field emitted by the uber-condensed and aligned Earth's inner core only interacts weakly with everyday matter due it being of such low density. The Moon's uber-condensed and aligned inner core interacts very STRONGLY though, giving us planetary motion.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #36 on: 05/09/2008 12:30:24 »
Are we just Troll-chasing here?
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #37 on: 06/09/2008 11:00:25 »
I can PROVE that the Earth is not inducing the Moon with angular momentum:

                   WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING??  ::)


It is TRUE that the tides are higher on the west coast of a continent compared to the east when only considering the Earth-Moon system where ocean current effects due to temperature variation are ignored. I predict that the Hudson Bay gravitational anomaly is also an influential factor. I further predict that the GOCE satellite (launch 10th Sept) will detect that this anomaly is due to core material embedded in the crust from an ancient meteor impact event.

Cheers,

AL  8)
« Last Edit: 06/09/2008 11:15:28 by common_sense_seeker »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #38 on: 06/09/2008 14:24:25 »
Are we just Troll-chasing here?

One of the signs of troll infestation is spurious use of capitals in their writing, often mid-sentence, in the mistaken belief that it will aid comprehension.  It is similar, and perhaps based upon the same mental processes, to the phenomena where some people think that speaking their own language more loudly will enable non-speaking foreigners to understand them.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #39 on: 06/09/2008 16:39:38 »
I think that someone who says "WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING??" is an idiot, a troll or both.
The moon spins.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #40 on: 07/09/2008 12:04:37 »
Well, anyone who starts a thread with the title "Gravity Problem Solved" has got to be on shakey ground, especially when they then start talking about something that isn't regarded as a problem at all.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #41 on: 07/09/2008 17:14:46 »
I think that someone who says "WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING??" is an idiot, a troll or both.
The moon spins.

Perhaps such people need to seek some common sense.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #42 on: 08/09/2008 13:37:48 »
What is the mechanism for your transfer of angular momentum? If it is by a particle, then it would have to have a large mass, would it not?

Do gravitons have mass?
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #43 on: 08/09/2008 17:21:05 »
You were talking about the concept being unexplained by Newtonian mechanics. It has been shown that it is well qualitatively explained by Newtonian mechanics to a good approximation (no huge masses or relativistic velocities) and the sizes of objects are such that you do not need to invoke quantum mechanics. Now you have jumped to quantum particle exchange issues. I think you must first explain why you think the simple Newtonian explanations are wrong before delving into gravitational waves and gravitons. This is simply moving the goalposts.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #44 on: 08/09/2008 19:39:44 »
"Common_sense_seeker" If you insist on posting stuff like that please restrict it to just one thread.
Anyway the simple answer to "If it is by a particle, then it would have to have a large mass, would it not?"
is  "no".
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #45 on: 09/09/2008 10:16:09 »
The Wiki explanation for 'graviton' states that it would have to be massless. That's the crucial point I'm trying to make and which you seem unable to comprehend.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #46 on: 09/09/2008 10:25:05 »
graham.d, I'm simply replying to Brian Cox's TV programme 'What's Wrong With Gravity?'. He states quite clearly that if the LHC experiment, start-up tomorrow, shows that the Standard Model is incorrect, then it is extremely likely that there is a fundamental mis-understanding of the nature of gravity. I'm stating that I think I can see the problem and that it boils down to the fact that Newton's vision and subsequent equation of universal gravitation is wrong. It's crystal clear in my mind.

AL  8)
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #47 on: 09/09/2008 13:46:02 »
We all know and agree that Newton's theory of Gravitation is wrong and I think most of us would agree that all the theories (about everything) are probably wrong and it just a matter of time before they are shown to be so. The question is "how wrong?" Newton's theory (obviously) does not take into account relativistic effects or quantum effects but has been shown to be a very good predictor of reality away from the extremes where these effects apply. Motions of planets, including the moon going around the earth, is well within the scope of using Newtonian mechanics and getting a reasonably accurate result. It falls down in a predictable way with the high gravitation of the sun acting on the close orbit of Mercury where it can be shown that General Relativity does a better job. GR accurately predicts gravitational lensing, and many other effects, which Newtonian mechanics would not, and all of the limits of applicability are reasonably predictable. Black Holes at their event horizons need to invoke quantum gravitational effects and the theory here starts to be debatable. And when it comes to unifying the theories into a coherent whole, there are several variations posed all of which are consistent with observations to date. The work with the LHC can eliminate a number of these theories. None of this is likely to change our calculations or reasoning about the moon's orbit around the earth.

You could argue that, even now, we could think of how gravity works in a number of ways. For example, the moon could be in a gravitational field or it could simply be following a geodesic. The results would come out the same to a high level of precision. It seems to me that your suggestions of how the moon affects tides is nothing at all to do with the subtleties of any unified theories, but is trying to qualitatively pose an alternative explanation for tides for which there is no justification or supporting evidence. Any new theory that may emerge as a result of experiments with the LHC will have to support existing observations and all of these observations to do with gravity (made so far) are wholly consistent (within there ranges of applicability) to Newtonian Theory of Gravitation or GR.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #48 on: 09/09/2008 14:24:04 »
graham.d, I'm proposing that Newton's theory of gravity is totally wrong. He's missed out the fact that it has a directional component. What about the Pioneer probe gravity anomalies that NASA are wrestling with?
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #49 on: 09/09/2008 16:22:03 »
What do you mean by a "directional component"? Centres of masses attract (Newton), which is directional. It what sense do you mean it? And what has this got to do with the moon and the tides anyway? Your ideas here seem at odds with any theory. The Pioneer probe anomalies may have nothing whatever to do with gravity - there are many theories. As I said before, any new theory has to be compatible with measurements and as the existing theories are compatible (as far as planetary motion and many other effects are concerned), it means that any new theory has to be  compatible with the older theories within the range of applicability.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #49 on: 09/09/2008 16:22:03 »

 

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