The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Discussion against gravity  (Read 19585 times)

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #50 on: 20/11/2010 19:23:15 »
According to gravitational law, very massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
By using the formula G*m1*m2/d˛
 Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.


It is very simple, as Soulsurfer wrote earlier our solar system is explained by relative movement (momentum) of all particles and the 4 forces interactions between them. The relative movement of the moon to the sun keep it from falling to the sun... There is nothing to argue about the existence of gravity... The question is how gravity is related to the other forces? Because it is... The other forces obey to the relativity of time... which is a direct effect of gravity and acceleration (velocity is a result of acceleration)...
« Last Edit: 20/11/2010 20:02:12 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline rwjefferson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #51 on: 20/11/2010 22:52:40 »
...when Newton saw an apple falling from the tree, he made a final decesion to make a theory without observing further things and put the whole science in a dark hole. 

It is not Newton that puts us in side a dark hole; it is dogma.  Newton did not know the math to show time flows; Einstein did.  Einstein did not know the math to show space is also fluent; 

Earth's electromagnetic atomsphere holds ~120 times the energy of the relative quantum wind.  As I take wing and float up on fluxions of fluent air, I feel force as gravity in addition to force as levity. 

What do you call the force of all and everything that holds you firmly hear on earth?

I serve
ItS
r~
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #52 on: 20/11/2010 23:59:09 »
Time...

And about the negative pressure from the other similar subject post, the supernova observations and results just describe the dark energy as a negative pressure (still from an unknown source)...

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28445
« Last Edit: 21/11/2010 02:02:43 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #53 on: 21/11/2010 08:09:09 »
CPT and rwj,

Kindly stick to the subject.

Please feel free to launch other topics if you wish to propose a new theory.

Thanks!
 

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #54 on: 21/11/2010 11:31:09 »
"In Cavendish experiment we do not know the following parameters
1)   Air Pressure
2)   Direction of air
3)   Masses and the densities of M and m
4)   Distance between M and m
5)   Height of the  rope/string
6)   Nature of the string
7)   Polarity of M and m
8)   Material (iron,steel,plastic wood etc) of M and m
9)   Is it shows the same results for different materials as the gravity is constant for all the objects?
10)   Is this experiment gives the same results all the time in all conditions?"
In the real world, rather than one where gravity doesn't exist and where this whole thread makes sense, we do know most of those things.

Cavendish was a good experimenter and will have logged most of them like the masses and distances.
There are some like #10 which no single experiment can show, but we have been using spring balances (and the more modern equivalents) for a long time. We know by direct experiment that gravity hasn't changed much since Cavendish's day.

The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 1798 — 71 years after Newton's death — by Henry Cavendish (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Michell. He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell by timing the beam's oscillation. Their faint attraction to other balls placed alongside the beam was detectable by the deflection it caused. Cavendish's aim was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction. In retrospect, the density that Cavendish calculated implies a value for G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3/kg/s2.[5]
The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.[3][6]
In the January 5, 2007 issue of Science (page 74), the report "Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity" (J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich) describes a new measurement of the gravitational constant. According to the abstract: "Here, we report a value of G = 6.693 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10−11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10−11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared."[7] (Wikipedia)
From the above history, it is quite clear that Cavendish wanted to calculate the density of the Earth rather to calculate the Gravitational Constant.
It is quite clear that G is dependent of density and acceleration due to gravity it dependent of G.
We have estimated value of G not the exact one and we are rotating the whole science on the basis of G which is dependent of density.
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.
What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists.
 
 

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #55 on: 21/11/2010 12:23:00 »

We lso have historical records of eclipses and such that show that the moon's orbit hasn't changed much for centuries and we know from things like Stonehenge that the orbit of the earth round the Sun hasn't changed much in several thousand years.
That's not proof that it will never change, but its perfectly good evidence that it's stable.
You, on the other hand, have offered precisely no evidence to support your strange notions.

Incidentally I suspect that, if God existed, He would prefer to be left out of this.

We are more likely to be convinced by evidence and sound maths than by trying to appeal to God as a witness (Unless, of course, He actually turns up and tells us you are right).



The point that i am trying to expose is about the possession o f Moon,when it is exact in between the Sun and Earth. As Soul Surfer describe that the Sun, moon and the earth is not only depend on gravity but there is also an angular momentum as well. As the angular momentum and the gravity is constant in between Sun, Moon and the Earth as they are moving and rotating with a constant speed. Then there should be a disturbance in their rotation and motion when there is total Sun eclipse and Moon eclipse because the net force is constant. In this phenomena there is clear  division in forces because at this stage there is conflict of possession of Moon between between Earth and the Sun.
I have provided the examples to support the density difference principal as you claimed that i am presenting this phenomena (density difference)without any logic or example, i think it is quite clear to understand this phenomena with the help of the examples that i have mentioned and discuss in my theory.This principal of density difference is prominent and effective to explain the difference in behavior of different objects as compared to the gravity.     
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #56 on: 21/11/2010 12:56:11 »
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
On the other hand the experiment has been repeated with other materials.
The value measured for G is the same.
The fact that we can't measure it very accurately just reflects that fact that it's small.

Gravity always attracts. There's no repulsive gravity (at least there's none we know about) So it always adds up.
Electrostatic forces on the other hand are both attractive and repulsive so, for large uncharged bodies the overall effect is small.

That's why the effect of gravity can hold galaxies together even though it's a weak force.
I don't see why you think eclipses are anything special.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #57 on: 21/11/2010 13:01:50 »
Quote
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.

Think a bit harder about the relative sizes (and crucially masses) of the objects you're considering. It seems to me that your inability to grasp how gravity works may stem from a failure to comprehend just how massive planets and stars are relative to anything used in a laboratory experiment.

I would seriously suggest that if you want to understand this you sit down, probably with something like an A-level mechanics text book, and work through the maths of Newtonian gravity, and calculate for yourself the forces it predicts between sun and earth, earth and moon, two 1 kg lead balls, etc., and also circular orbits and centripetal force. Then come back in a few weeks, if you're still puzzled, and ask some more questions.
 

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #58 on: 21/11/2010 13:43:17 »
Quote
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.

Think a bit harder about the relative sizes (and crucially masses) of the objects you're considering. It seems to me that your inability to grasp how gravity works may stem from a failure to comprehend just how massive planets and stars are relative to anything used in a laboratory experiment.

I would seriously suggest that if you want to understand this you sit down, probably with something like an A-level mechanics text book, and work through the maths of Newtonian gravity, and calculate for yourself the forces it predicts between sun and earth, earth and moon, two 1 kg lead balls, etc., and also circular orbits and centripetal force. Then come back in a few weeks, if you're still puzzled, and ask some more questions.
hanks for your suggestion:
I think you have a broad vision, please first read the points that i have identified against the gravity and also give me the justification of Hydrogen filled balloon that successes ed  to escape from this occult and great force. 
Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx
and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx, which is twice the force between Earth an Moon.
Also guide and correct me about this calculated value, this value is teasing me about the Solar system.
I also request you to give the directions, method and basic parameter of Cavendish experiment because my knowledge is of laboratory level and i want to start it from its beginning.
Thanks
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #59 on: 21/11/2010 14:23:25 »
Ah. I see. That's your problem... it's not actually a problem at all.

What you're missing about the earth and the moon is that the moon can be considered as being in orbit about the sun (the moon is, after all, going around the sun once per year in much the same way as the earth is), but because the earth and the moon are close together, the moon's trajectory around the sun is disturbed by its trajectory around the earth. The earth's trajectory is also disturbed by the moon, but its a smaller wobble because the earth's mass is so much more than the moon's.
 

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #60 on: 22/11/2010 13:00:50 »
Ah. I see. That's your problem... it's not actually a problem at all.

What you're missing about the earth and the moon is that the moon can be considered as being in orbit about the sun (the moon is, after all, going around the sun once per year in much the same way as the earth is), but because the earth and the moon are close together, the moon's trajectory around the sun is disturbed by its trajectory around the earth. The earth's trajectory is also disturbed by the moon, but its a smaller wobble because the earth's mass is so much more than the moon's.

The six numbers that controlling the universe are:
nu (a ratio of the strength of electrical forces that hold atoms together compared to the force of gravity which is 10 to the 37th power)
Epsilon (how firmly the atomic nuclei bind together which is 0.004)
Omega (amount of material in the universe)
Lambda (force of cosmic "antigravity" discovered in 1998, which is a very small number)
Q (ratio of two fundamental energies, which is 1/100,000)
Delta (number of spatial dimensions in our universe)
1st one is very large, about 10:36, as appeared the 1st force is very important. If there is any change/unbalance in this force it can be very dangerous.
According to Gravitational Law, the force is inversely proportional to the distance. In case of Sun, Moon and Earth, the distance between Earth, Moon and Sun is constant but it varies in case of Sun and Moon.
The force of attraction between Sun and Moon is twice the force between Earth and Moon. When the distance between Sun and Moon changes it also changes the force between them according to the Gravitational Law, if there is any change in force it should disturb the whole system because all other parameters and forces are constant or very minor in this system.
I am still waiting for your answer on other point that I have mentioned against gravity in my theory
 

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #61 on: 22/11/2010 13:13:35 »
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
[/quot
Then it is clear, the force is dependent of density
Am i right?
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #62 on: 22/11/2010 13:29:01 »
Quote
I am still waiting for your answer on other point that I have mentioned against gravity in my theory

You're not going to get an answer, because you have already made it very clear that you do not in the least understand the current theory as it applies to the orbits of the earth and moon about the sun. Your objections are born of a lack of comprehension and there is no evidence here at all that you have any interesting new insight.

This is not a suitable format for filling the gaps in your education, and I haven't the time. You will have to do it yourself, I repeat my suggestion that you start with some elementary mechanics.

Go away and do your homework, make an effort to actually understand the current theory, and then maybe (if you still persist in "disagreeing with" gravity, which I doubt) you'll have something interesting to contribute.

You need to understand this:
Quote
According to Gravitational Law, the force is inversely proportional to the distance. In case of Sun, Moon and Earth, the distance between Earth, Moon and Sun is constant but it varies in case of Sun and Moon.
No. In reality, rather than a small object orbiting around a large object, it's important to bear in mind that both are in orbit around that centre of mass of the system. If the small object is much smaller than the large object, the centre of mass of the system may be close to the centre of mass of the large object, but the two are never actually the same, and there is always a perturbation in the path of the large object as well as that of the small object. In short: the sun-moon distance is not constant; the sun-earth distance is not constant; the sun-(earth-moon centre of mass) distance is constant.

 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #63 on: 22/11/2010 13:38:13 »
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."
No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
Then it is clear, the force is dependent of density
Am i right?
Do you mean:
Quote
Then it is clear, the force is dependent on density
or:
Quote
Then it is clear, the force is independent of density

The force is completely independent of density, it depends only on mass. Whether you make the spheres of lead, plastic or cheddar cheese is without any importance, the results will be the same. However, because lead is very dense it is easier to use because the balls are smaller (and thus the centres of mass can be moved closer together without the edges of the spheres getting in the way).
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #64 on: 22/11/2010 14:40:30 »
Go away and do your homework, make an effort to actually understand the current theory, and then maybe (if you still persist in "disagreeing with" gravity, which I doubt) you'll have something interesting to contribute.

After 3 pages of nonsense and circular arguments, it might be time to lock this thread until the OP has taken the repeated good advice given to him/her.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #65 on: 22/11/2010 21:42:43 »
The last thread on this subject got locked and the poster (fleep) got banned.
The OP here has contributed nothing but a muddled lack of understanding and an example of how not to learn.
What would the site lose by banning Syedbukhari?
 

Post by syedbukhari39 click to view.

Offline syedbukhari39

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #66 on: 24/11/2010 12:53:57 »
Shrunk
Galileo was the first man who told us about the behavior of falling objects having different weight.
 
 Galileo dropped a cannon ball and wooden ball from the top of the Tower of Pisa.

This story is apocryphal, while some of his earlier predecessors actually performed this experiment, and found in fact a slight difference in the time the two balls struck the ground.
Although the Leaning Tower of Pisa is there but no one successes to do it again. There is only one possibility available for both balls fall down at the same time when both have the same densities, otherwise there should always a difference in the time.

Archimedes' principle, light and sound also depends on the density of the medium, and on the basis of this density factor we are calculating and getting almost 100 % results.
As light and sound depends on the density of the medium then why we are trying to isolate the objects having some weight from the density factor?
In case of bulky objects this factor becomes more prominent and describes the motion of the object more precisely as compared to the Gravity.
The speed of falling object is directly proportional to the difference in densities of the object and the medium.
It can be understand by the following example:
Drop a ball from the top of the building in to the swimming poll, it will start its motion from zero then it will attain the speed according to the difference in density of the medium and the density of the ball. When this ball hits on the surface of the water it will no more able to travel its distance although the mysterious Gravity is there then why it ends up its journey?
Its very simple and understandable, the density difference of the medium (water) and the ball is negative at this time that causes the ball to float on the surface of water rather to continue its journey.
It is quite simple to understand the behavior of different objects on the basis of density difference.
 Let’s take another example:
Take a pipette and fill it with water, now put the thumb on the top of the pipette. You will see, water will suspend in the pipette. Why it is so although Gravity is there?
When you remove the thumb it will go down.
Helium balloons in cars work on the same principal of density difference.
My point of view is that density is the key factor that decides the difference in behavior of objects not the gravity.
Why I am considering the everyday life example because the origin of theory of gravity was a falling apple, no other solid observation or logic and mathematics involved in creation of this theory. In order to support this theory calculus was invented and Cavendish performed an experiment which is still doubtful.
if the forum thinks i am wasting their time then you may close this topic. 
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Discussion against gravity
« Reply #67 on: 24/11/2010 14:05:22 »
I can not after all the previous efforts, be bothered to read all the above.

I just will go as far as saying, w.r.t.:
Posted by: syedbukhari39
"Drop a ball from the top of the building. ...It will [accelerate] from zero [until it attains its maximum] speed according to the difference in density [between air and the ball]."
This is wrong.

If this was the case a dart shaped object, made of the same amount of the same type of material as whatever a bowling ball is composed of, would reach the same maximum velocity.
It won't.  Surely you see this is down to air resistance?

"If the forum thinks I am wasting their time then you may close this topic."
- I am taking you advice and locking this thread now. If you want to PM me giving in one short sentence an outline of where 200+ odd years of science has gone wrong, or adding some other logical reason why the thread should stay open then please do.  But please keep it short!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Discussion against gravity
« Reply #67 on: 24/11/2010 14:05:22 »

 

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