The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity Problem Solved  (Read 48130 times)

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #50 on: 09/09/2008 17:30:20 »
graham.d, I believe that matter was created as spinning 'energy' from a point source until the big bang event occurred. I believe that this spinnning energy was only emitting gravity perpendicular to it's main axis of rotation. A bit like a spinning pencil that doesn't emit gravity out of either end of it's main axis. I don't expect you to agree of course.

AL  8)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #51 on: 09/09/2008 19:09:42 »
It seems that you are not aware that photons, which are massless, carry momentum.

Do you also not understand that, since it predicts the highest tides in the wrong places and a non-spinning moon, your theor is totally wrong?
Newton might not have taken account of relativity, but you are not taking account of reality. That's not science- it's trolling.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #52 on: 09/09/2008 20:45:29 »
Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.

I also have a solution for the wave/particle duality which you'll be delighted to know I haven't posted as a new thread yet.

AL  8)
 

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #53 on: 10/09/2008 13:28:27 »
Dear common_sense_seeker,

Please understand that for your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to supply more than a series of buzzwords linked together. For any new theory proposed (not just by you), the ideas must be explained clearly and quantitatively, and they must also be consistent with observational results. Also please bear in mind that any post without these kind of testable predictions which start out saying "everyone else is wrong and I have come up with the theory of everything" is likely to be treated with scepticism at best and ridicule at worst. The place I work gets several letters a month detailing new universal theories, and almost all of them follow the same pattern we've seen in this thread. Most of them do get credit for attempting the maths, but have made a flawed assumption or two close to the start. New ideas are ALWAYS welcome, but they must be based in the scientific method!

Trying to pick holes in an established theory does not automatically make your alternative right, especially when you specifically say you are refusing to do the relevant maths. Maybe you are concerned that if you do, your theory will not agree with observations? If you want to pursue this, either post fully testable (or at least consistent) predictions of your new theory or, if you are concerned about your work being stolen, I would suggest writing it up as a paper and sending it to a journal for peer-review (such as MNRAS). I look forward to reading it!

Richard
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #54 on: 10/09/2008 14:07:27 »
Dear Richard, thanks for a sensible comment. I intend to pursue a computer simulation model route using geometry rather than mathematical formulae. Something akin to the Durham University model, which I think looks like the most unelegant answer to creation I've ever seen. In reality, the start of it all has got to be very simple. Even Einstein says that an initial simple mental picture is the key to success.

AL  8)
 

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #55 on: 10/09/2008 14:14:23 »
...in which case, you are using maths, just through numerical methods. Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!

Richard
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #56 on: 10/09/2008 14:33:03 »
Obviously using some maths. I don't believe that supporters of the Standard Model have a simple mental picture of creation. Simplicity is the key. I know it's all words until I pull something professional out the bag. I have a wonderful visual solution for the cosmological expansion. Epiphany-inducing. You're right, I'm worried someone's going to pinch my ideas. I hoping some other hapless fool clicks with my thinking.

Chance in a billion so far I think.

AL  ;D
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #57 on: 10/09/2008 14:42:40 »
Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!

Richard

I confess that my knowledge of the Durham University work came solely from the TV. It was the standard model cobbled together to produce graphics which resembled the pictures from Hubble. I wasn't impressed and neither was Brian Cox if I remember correctly.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #58 on: 10/09/2008 19:04:13 »
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.
 

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #59 on: 11/09/2008 00:36:55 »
I would suggest a good literature search to find out if anything has been done previously in the area you want to explore. If I'm allowed to post links to external sites, here are a couple:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html [nofollow]
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/preprint_service.html [nofollow]
You can search there for any published or preprinted paper in any area of physics/astronomy, so there should be something there relevant for you. At least it should give you some ideas of what has already been covered.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #60 on: 11/09/2008 10:17:42 »
Thanks Richard, unfortunately I didn't have access to the sites.

AL
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #61 on: 11/09/2008 10:24:33 »
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.

Bored chemist, it's starting to get infectious. Another circumstantial piece of evidence to support my claims is that the highest transport of nutrients from the seafloor towards the surface are also found on the west coasts. An example of this is off the west coast of South America. It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon.
 

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #62 on: 11/09/2008 11:14:11 »
Then try:
http://arxiv.org/ [nofollow]

I think this is open to all, the previous preprint link should be too. For the papers published in journals I think you would need a subscription to that journal.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #63 on: 11/09/2008 19:41:15 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.
This theory also has the advantage of fitting the rest of the data and not predicting a stationary moon or the highest tides in the wrong places. For those who like that sort of thing (ie most scientists) the usual theory has the helpful , if conventional, benefit of a basis in sound mathematics applied to measurable quantities.

 

Offline Gabe2k2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #64 on: 11/09/2008 19:48:57 »
OK do the moons gravitational effects effect the thickness of the atmosphere do we have to account for lunar gravity when modeling a weather system ! or when the tide is high is the atmosphere also thicker ! Free flowing water yeah obvious to me but even more free flowing gasses !
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #65 on: 12/09/2008 11:30:12 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.


Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #66 on: 13/09/2008 00:13:06 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of gravitational force being proportional to
m1m2/d2. The sum of the elements of all the masses of the Moon and Earth produce the mutual orbit of the two bodies, a wobble in the Earth's motion and the tidal bulges are (at least, qualitatively) predicted. You can do simple sums to show the way the effective gravity varies at different points around the Earth's surface due to the Moon's presence. This accounts for two bulges- one on the Moon side and one on the other side.
 
If you take a simplified Earth Moon system with a thin layer of water around a solid sphere where there is some 'damping' involved, it predicts a pair of bulges which sweep around the Earth, following the Moon. The depth of the bulges and the actual lag will depend upon actual details of the system. The 'real' system is too complicated to model accurately because the Oceans resonate and produce extra effects of phase shifts and standing waves. And, of course, the Sun's effect is very significant, too.
 However, you don't need to involve the Earth's crust flexing in order to explain how the tides happen.
Why look for a a totally unverifiable explanation when a simple one does the job?
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #67 on: 13/09/2008 11:40:47 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of


You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.

I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #68 on: 13/09/2008 19:47:35 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.


Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.

You would be impressed if I knew the conventional explanation?
It's in the WIKI article that someone posted in this thread.
It's interesting to note that mty abillity to read impresses you.

As for "I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation." you aare obviously talking nonsense as this flexing is very small. You cannot call it a logical explanation because it doesn't make sense.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #69 on: 14/09/2008 01:03:28 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of


You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.

I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.
This seems a complete red herring; do we now claim that wind is the main cause of tides as well as the lithosphere moving up and down? What has David Attenborough got to do with Physics? I thought he was a naturalist.
btw, I wonder whether you have ever done any sums to justify this new model of yours. Oh and, yes - I have done sums and so have many other people, in connection with the accepted model. The results tie in with experience - would  / do yours? How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for  5m of sea movement or more.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #70 on: 16/09/2008 10:13:07 »
 
Quote
How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for  5m of sea movement or more.

That's a good question for once. The exact data is difficult to get hold off of course, but I work on a rough estimate of around 0.2m rise in the seabed. It is the also the lateral movement of the seabed bulge which has an 'unlimited' amount of momentum when compared to that of the ocean. I'm using logical arguments to highlight my theory, rather than woolly mathematics. It's not that I can't do maths, I scored 98% in my first year at university and was awarded joint 'best student' for my discipline out of around 300+.

What are your academic achievements?
« Last Edit: 16/09/2008 10:30:25 by BenV »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #71 on: 16/09/2008 10:35:16 »
Now now.  Sophie's academic achievements are not relevant to this discussion.  What's important is that you have been asked a question, and instead of answering it you say you work on a "rough estimate", then claim you use logic instead of "wooly mathematics". If your logic is true, it will hold up against the maths. In fact, if your logic is true it will predict the maths.  People here have asked you to mathematically prove your logic, yet you refuse.

And how can something have unlimited momentum?
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #72 on: 16/09/2008 11:04:52 »
And how can something have unlimited momentum?

The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense. It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.
« Last Edit: 16/09/2008 11:06:52 by common_sense_seeker »
 

Offline Rock A. Fellow

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #73 on: 16/09/2008 11:49:05 »
Hello all
 With respect to common sense seeke,I would like to encourage any new theory that uses right brain thinking. I believe it is possible to use the subconscious along with our conscious mind to see pictures of how things work.
 Using simplicity,as I believe c_s_s is asking us to do, I would like to know what your thoughts would be on this.

  If we heat the center of a dense ball, we would get a reaction. One reaction is well known as expansion. If the ball was large(like the earth)  expansion and contraction (heat/cool/expand/contract) would cause what ever covers the surface (water) to create waves?

 This is simple yes and is shown in natural physics everyday.
 
Math is a nice tool that helps enplane what we see nature doing.
 Good discussion thanks
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #74 on: 16/09/2008 12:24:32 »
And how can something have unlimited momentum?

The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense.

Are you at all surprised to find that the people here, on this science forum, are like your scientific friends?  The problem is that you are proposing a way to think about something, then claiming that it's true.  I'm sure it's a nice logical way to think of it, but to prove it you will need some evidence.  You will need to show how your idea predicts what happens, and the only way to do this convincingly is with the maths.

I can comprehend all sorts of things, but this does not make them true.  In order to prove them scientifically, I will have to use scientific proof.

Quote
It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.

But it's not based at all on calculations - you have so far refused to give them.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #74 on: 16/09/2008 12:24:32 »

 

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