The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity Problem Solved  (Read 48199 times)

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #75 on: 16/09/2008 13:35:53 »
Quote
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #76 on: 16/09/2008 13:43:29 »
The effect on the right brain would only work if we were all facing the same way!
c-s-s would, presumably insist on the Maths used to calculate his grocery or restaurant bill was correct and would probably not accept a random, "common sense" figure from the shopkeeper's or waiter's imagination.
If we are to disregard Maths then we might as well all go home and give up any idea of doing Science.
I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #77 on: 16/09/2008 13:51:31 »
Quote
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.

I told you they weren't relevant!
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #78 on: 16/09/2008 14:06:44 »

I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.


My argument is simply an answer to Brian Cox's TV programme "What's wrong with gravity", shown sometime earlier this year. He's the one who designed the LHC at CERN.

Incidentally the maths isn't worth doing at high school standard, since fluid dynamics are involved, which neither of us could do.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #79 on: 16/09/2008 14:48:07 »
Now you can't say the size of my willy isn't relevant!!

I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #80 on: 16/09/2008 16:09:04 »

I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.

Did you see his TV programme concerning the problem with gravity? Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #81 on: 16/09/2008 17:24:32 »
Sophie, sophie, sophie. How silly of me not to realise that you're a physics supply teacher. I genuinely have a lot of respect for you, I know how confident you have to be to face a class of modern day teenagers. I certainly couldn't do it. But do you have the same attitude and responses to children who challenge the long held orthodoxy of physics?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #82 on: 16/09/2008 21:34:15 »
Of course Newton's Laws of Gravity are limited in their scope. That does not make them wrong. When you ask someone the time and they say "Quarter past two" you would not tell them they were 'wrong' if you then looked at your Rubidium Activated Caesium clock and you saw it was 14:14.33.3674663552.
You might be surprised, however, if, some time later, they told you it was Two o'clock.
Newton's laws describe the situation extremely well ( they don't contradict themselves either) but they don't EXPLAIN anything; they don't even pretend to. They are correct in sign and very accurate in magnitude in their prediction. Very few situations cannot be dealt with by using Newton. He fails under extreme conditions - high speeds, big masses, big and small distances. There have been other, 'better' models, since. Unlike your proposed ideas, however, these more advanced models 'tend to' Newton's Laws under normal conditions. They don't need to contradict the laws, they just modify them.
The nice thing about teaching kids is that, when you give them enough good reason to believe what you tell them - conventional evidence coupled with (usually) some simple maths - they accept it and, presumably, wait until they know more and can understand better - possibly to prove me wrong. They may have many faults but they seem recognise reasonable Science when they see it I never have to say "because I say so". I think they must realise that you have to be VERY GOOD and VERY RIGHT to challenge conventional wisdom. I often wonder where people get the arrogance to oppose the conventions of Science with so little substance to their new theories.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8675
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #83 on: 16/09/2008 21:39:50 »
"Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?!"
Yes, I understand that. There's a couple of problems. We don't know how to combine quantumn mechanics and gravity. We also suspect there might be a small correction to Einstein's work - the pioneer probe isn't quite where we expect it to be. The difference is about a ten-thousandth of a thousandth of a thousandth of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
That's a tiny difference- small enough that we are not sure it is real.

We know that our understanding of gravity is good enough to fly spacecraft to the moon. It gives us things like the GPS system.
Just for a start, the GPS is good enough to show that the earth's surface simply does not move as much as you think.
Sorry- it's an ugly fact destroying a dumb "theory".

The tides are perfectly well explained by our theory of gravity.
You seem to be trying to make up some imaginary problem in order to justify a "theory".
there might be some tiny little problem and there's certainly a need for a better theory of quantumn gravity.
If you were doing anything like that you would be making a contribution here.
You are not.
You are banging on about nonsense.
Having qualifications dosn't make your theory right; getting the right answers does.
You have failed in any way to do this.
You got the tides' maxima wrong. You got the moon's spin wrong. You got the tidal range of the bedrock wrong.

Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?

 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #84 on: 16/09/2008 21:56:03 »
No, BC, don't hold back - tell 'im straight!
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #85 on: 17/09/2008 12:59:34 »

Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?



Dear BC and Sophie, I hear you. I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics. A recent BBC4 TV programme had Brian Cox show that he thought there was only a 0.01% chance of not finding the Higgs particle. But another top scientist gave a 60% chance of not finding it. So it ISN'T a foregone conclusion. I'm not anti-science in the least. Hopefully the result will come in the next few months, or maybe it will take a lot longer than that? I don't know.  
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8675
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #86 on: 17/09/2008 19:30:47 »
"I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics."
No, it will take more than that.

The LHC might show there's something wrong with our current models of the universe; but it won't show that your model is right unless
1 it moves the high tides,
2 it stops the moon spinning and
3 it makes the land bounce up and down

When those all happen come back and tell us you were right.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #87 on: 17/09/2008 19:36:20 »

No, it will take more than that.




You're right on that score. I think Brian Cox is probably going to be the person to see the light. But that's just my opinion of course.

How long do you think it will take for Brian Cox to declare that the Higgs particle has been found?
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8675
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #88 on: 18/09/2008 07:05:55 »
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #89 on: 18/09/2008 09:50:16 »
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.

How drole.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #90 on: 18/09/2008 14:16:46 »
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.

Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8675
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #91 on: 18/09/2008 19:44:48 »
" Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea."
Bollocks!
If I say I have a "theory" that says you can extract unlimited energy from old crisp packets it doesn't mean it's worth investigating; it means I'm a loony.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #92 on: 18/09/2008 22:26:40 »
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.


Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
Do you actually 'understand' what this new core-centred theory means?
Does gravity only work between certain parts of objects? Which bits?
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #93 on: 19/09/2008 10:04:21 »
It means that gravity has a directional component. I have deduced that the fundamental particle doesn't emit gravity particles in all directions.

Core-centered theory is the only way to explain the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths found frozen in standing positions within the permafrost. They are even located within the arctic circle, in near perfect condition with their meat being good enough to eat. I propose a giant comet near-miss pulled on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago. Earthquakes liquified the ground and engulfed the mammoths. The entire landmass then rose by over 6km into the freezing air temperatures above.

Professor Hapgood has analysed the data in detail. I even propose that Siberia was lush with vegetation during the summer at least, necessary to support a population of mammoths in the first place. I further propose that the pull on the inner core created convection currents within the mantle which reduced the amount of heat reaching the crust, hence the start of an ice age.

Not only is it a new theory of gravity but also a new theory of the ice ages.
« Last Edit: 19/09/2008 10:07:42 by common_sense_seeker »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #94 on: 19/09/2008 11:41:20 »
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.

I ask again; do you  (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!

The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #95 on: 19/09/2008 13:38:48 »
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.

I ask again; do you  (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!

The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.


You're ignoring the scientific data concerning the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths yourself! A core-centered theory is the only viable option.

My theory of gravity has cause and effect just the same as the standard theory. I'm proposing that the size of the uber-condensed core of is proportional to the planetesimal's total size. Therfore the maths works out pretty much the same on planetary scales.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #96 on: 20/09/2008 00:07:41 »
I suppose it would be too much to ask for some kind of formula - which could be applied to simple situations and return the correct answer?
Science is not based on arm waving.
 

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #97 on: 20/09/2008 09:55:41 »
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?


If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Does that sound fair enough?

BTW Another forum discussion about the mammoth analysis is rife.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8675
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #98 on: 20/09/2008 19:33:18 »
"If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Does that sound fair enough?"
OK,
If you look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
it shows you how to calculate the force acting on the two balls.
It also lets you calculate the forvce between the eath and the moon.
The answer explains planetary motion perfectly.
Since it works just fine, but your ideas predict that it wouldn't work, your ideas must be wrong.
Please stop wittering on about them.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #99 on: 22/09/2008 00:18:01 »
Quote
If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.
Don't just promise it - show us it- give us some actual NUMBERS! Or bow out gracefully.
ps YOU can get the data - School Physics tells you what it will be and the experiments verify it.
« Last Edit: 22/09/2008 00:23:13 by sophiecentaur »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #99 on: 22/09/2008 00:18:01 »

 

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