# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts  (Read 5201 times)

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« on: 23/08/2012 03:53:52 »

Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?

What do you think?

You weigh less on a mountain top, then at sea level.

There is a certain amount of truth that anywhere but at the poles, you are going to weigh slightly less, because of the fact that you are moving at perhaps on average near 1000 feet per second. Consider that at just a little higher altitude, a satellite moving with the surface of the earth, no longer falls to earth. The difference from Sea level to a high self sustaining orbit really is not that great a distance.

If you look at the ratio, of a 100 pound weight, at sea level weighing 100 pounds, and then at that same weight, weighing nothing or not falling from high orbit. You can get an idea of the harsh, difference a couple of miles makes.

The old no longer taught theory of gravity stated that it was a pushing force, and as an object that creates gravity, like the earth, is bombarded, the gravity increases all the way to the core. Because the particles that are creating gravity are being focused to the core of the earth. Kind of like refraction or light through a lens.

So I would expect to weigh a few more pounds in a deep well.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### damocles

• Hero Member
• Posts: 756
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #1 on: 23/08/2012 06:02:31 »

Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?

What do you think?

You weigh less on a mountain top, then at sea level.

There is a certain amount of truth that anywhere but at the poles, you are going to weigh slightly less, because of the fact that you are moving at perhaps on average near 1000 feet per second.

This much of the post is quite correct.

More from Will:
Quote
...
Consider that at just a little higher altitude, a satellite moving with the surface of the earth, no longer falls to earth. The difference from Sea level to a high self sustaining orbit really is not that great a distance.

If you look at the ratio, of a 100 pound weight, at sea level weighing 100 pounds, and then at that same weight, weighing nothing or not falling from high orbit. You can get an idea of the harsh, difference a couple of miles makes.

The old no longer taught theory of gravity stated that it was a pushing force, and as an object that creates gravity, like the earth, is bombarded, the gravity increases all the way to the core. Because the particles that are creating gravity are being focused to the core of the earth. Kind of like refraction or light through a lens.

I am afraid that this bit is, once more, nonsense.

A satellite that is "... moving with the surface of the Earth ..." is in a geostationary orbit, 35786 km above the equator, or about 5.5 times the Earth's radius -- hardly qualifies as "... not that great a distance ..." on the scale we are considering.

"... self sustaining orbits ..." are certainly attainable at lower altitudes than this, but only because the satellites are orbiting the earth at speeds much faster than the earth's rotation -- typically they have orbital periods of the order of an hour or two rather than a day.

"... a couple of miles ..." makes a difference of the order of 1 part in 10,000 to the weight of a 100 lb mass (or any other mass for that matter).

There is no "... old, no longer taught theory of gravity ...". The picture of gravity as a push rather than a pull was never taught in any respectable school or university, and Sir Isaac himself described gravity as "a force of attraction".

The idea of gravity arising because of particles that are bombarding masses and focussed on the centre of the earth "... Kind of like refraction of light through a lens ..." is in desperate need of an external link or reference. If it ever existed it has disappeared without trace from the annals of science.

The last bit of Will's post:
Quote
...
So I would expect to weigh a few more pounds in a deep well.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

This last bit of the post is most probably correct. We have a lot of evidence for Will's sincerity, and no real reason to doubt it.

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #2 on: 23/08/2012 17:02:23 »
mod note - William, please stop, or at least make it clear that you are guessing or wildly speculating.  your answers to questions on the main forum have an appearance of certainty which may be very misleading to members who have little training or education in these areas.  I really do not want to have to start shrinking posts which have had a great deal of effort put into them - but if you continue to post nonsense to answers on the main forum I will do so.  please be warned.

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #3 on: 25/08/2012 01:54:27 »

Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?

What do you think?

You weigh less on a mountain top, then at sea level.

There is a certain amount of truth that anywhere but at the poles, you are going to weigh slightly less, because of the fact that you are moving at perhaps on average near 1000 feet per second.

This much of the post is quite correct.

More from Will:
Quote
...
Consider that at just a little higher altitude, a satellite moving with the surface of the earth, no longer falls to earth. The difference from Sea level to a high self sustaining orbit really is not that great a distance.

If you look at the ratio, of a 100 pound weight, at sea level weighing 100 pounds, and then at that same weight, weighing nothing or not falling from high orbit. You can get an idea of the harsh, difference a couple of miles makes.

The old no longer taught theory of gravity stated that it was a pushing force, and as an object that creates gravity, like the earth, is bombarded, the gravity increases all the way to the core. Because the particles that are creating gravity are being focused to the core of the earth. Kind of like refraction or light through a lens.

I am afraid that this bit is, once more, nonsense.

A satellite that is "... moving with the surface of the Earth ..." is in a geostationary orbit, 35786 km above the equator, or about 5.5 times the Earth's radius -- hardly qualifies as "... not that great a distance ..." on the scale we are considering.

"... self sustaining orbits ..." are certainly attainable at lower altitudes than this, but only because the satellites are orbiting the earth at speeds much faster than the earth's rotation -- typically they have orbital periods of the order of an hour or two rather than a day.

"... a couple of miles ..." makes a difference of the order of 1 part in 10,000 to the weight of a 100 lb mass (or any other mass for that matter).

There is no "... old, no longer taught theory of gravity ...". The picture of gravity as a push rather than a pull was never taught in any respectable school or university, and Sir Isaac himself described gravity as "a force of attraction".

The idea of gravity arising because of particles that are bombarding masses and focussed on the centre of the earth "... Kind of like refraction of light through a lens ..." is in desperate need of an external link or reference. If it ever existed it has disappeared without trace from the annals of science.

The last bit of Will's post:
Quote
...
So I would expect to weigh a few more pounds in a deep well.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

This last bit of the post is most probably correct. We have a lot of evidence for Will's sincerity, and no real reason to doubt it.

Ok my un- respectable school, filled with un respectable teachers and students, because what other kind of students could be created at such an evil place, taught me these things in this fashion.

These unholy scum at my school, explicitly told us that the material we would be learning as honor students was, from the past, and not necessarily main stream. I thought it might be interesting to some of you, to hear how it was, before World War Two. I do not understand, the amazing hatred for what I say, about my life. It is my life, I lived it, and now just mentioning "no longer taught information" is some kind of crime. Wow.

C.W Post awarded my school many first place prizes at the Long Island Science Congress. Maybe they are un respectable too?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #4 on: 25/08/2012 02:02:38 »
mod note - William, please stop, or at least make it clear that you are guessing or wildly speculating.  your answers to questions on the main forum have an appearance of certainty which may be very misleading to members who have little training or education in these areas.  I really do not want to have to start shrinking posts which have had a great deal of effort put into them - but if you continue to post nonsense to answers on the main forum I will do so.  please be warned.

I made it clear that the information I was providing is no longer taught. I was taught this information. By a fellow, a college professor, and Universal Scientist, who was still getting \$1,700.00 an hour to lecture in the early seventies. Am I not allowed to exist or communicate about my life?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### damocles

• Hero Member
• Posts: 756
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #5 on: 25/08/2012 02:21:26 »
Well, William, we are still waiting for that reference, because it would be most interesting to many of us. Are you sure you are not mis-remembering?

Gravity cannot be a push, because there simply is not enough material -- particles -- to create such a push on an astronaut walking on the surface of the moon, let alone to hold the planets in their elliptic orbits as they move around the sun. (This is quite apart from at least a dozen other inconsistencies and contradictions such a theory would introduce).

If, indeed, you are remembering correctly, then your school and teacher -- (was it a physics or general science teacher by the way, or a trade teacher?) -- would deserve the adjectives I have used. It is interesting that none of the leading scientists in the world in this area in the seventies, were lured by the huge fees being offered, to take up similar positions to your "Universal Scientist" and expound their well-researched insights into gravity.

#### damocles

• Hero Member
• Posts: 756
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #6 on: 25/08/2012 02:28:50 »
Quote
I made it clear that the information I was providing is no longer taught. I was taught this information. By a fellow, a college professor, and Universal Scientist, who was still getting \$1,700.00 an hour to lecture in the early seventies. Am I not allowed to exist or communicate about my life?

William no one is even remotely questioning your right to exist. And if you wish to communicate in these forums no-one is stopping you from doing that either. The only proviso is that you should post these sorts of messages in the appropriate section -- which is the New Theories forum. It probably should be relabelled as the "New Theories, Old Theories, and <Universal Science>" to make this a bit more clear.

#### Boogie

• Full Member
• Posts: 63
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #7 on: 27/08/2012 20:59:53 »

Ok my un- respectable school, filled with un respectable teachers and students, because what other kind of students could be created at such an evil place, taught me these things in this fashion.

These unholy scum at my school, explicitly told us that the material we would be learning as honor students was, from the past, and not necessarily main stream. I thought it might be interesting to some of you, to hear how it was, before World War Two. I do not understand, the amazing hatred for what I say, about my life. It is my life, I lived it, and now just mentioning "no longer taught information" is some kind of crime. Wow.

C.W Post awarded my school many first place prizes at the Long Island Science Congress. Maybe they are un respectable too?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### Boogie

• Full Member
• Posts: 63
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #8 on: 27/08/2012 21:15:31 »

I made it clear that the information I was providing is no longer taught. I was taught this information. By a fellow, a college professor, and Universal Scientist, who was still getting \$1,700.00 an hour to lecture in the early seventies. Am I not allowed to exist or communicate about my life?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Would that have been Walter Wright? If not, it looks like Walter is looking for credit.

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #9 on: 28/08/2012 03:48:29 »
The concept of pushing gravity was introduced by Fatio and Lesage around the time of Newton. They postulated that space is permeated with ultra-small, ultra-numerous, ultra-fast gravitons, which bounce off of masses like perfectly resilient spheres; and masses accelerate toward one another because they shield each other from the background of gravitons. They mistakenly believed that two perfect spherical mirrors in a uniformly white room would look slightly darker to each other than the rest of the room. That was the main flaw in their model. A later attempt to fix the model presumed that a fraction of the gravitons are absorbed, while the rest are scattered. The problem with that is that the amount of energy absorbed would be equivalent to the mass of the particle every picosecond. No reasonable mechanism was offered to explain what becomes of that energy. Pushing gravity is discussed extensively at the late Tom VanFlandern's metaresearch.org.
Today, the question of the cause of gravity is simply not asked in "respectable" circles. Minkowski space-time defines the path of light as a straght line, and since gravity affects light, space-time is warped. Most scientists now claim that gravity is caused by the warp of space-time, which is like saying that mountains are caused by the elevation lines on a topographic map. A mathematical description of an effect is not the cause of the effect.
The modern standard gravity formula is based on Newton's shell theorem. For points outside an empty uniform hollow spherical shell, gravity is equal to the gravity of an equivalent point mass at the center of the sphere. As you go farther outside the sphere, the gravity decreases according to the inverse square of distance from the center. For points inside the hollow shell, gravity is zero.
Since a solid sphere consists of concentric shells, the gravity inside the solid sphere at radius a is equal to the gravity of a point mass at the center, having as much mass as all of the shells inside radius a.
If the density of Earth were constant, the gravity inside would follow a straight line graph with zero gravity at the center and 1 g at the surface. Beyond that, it decreases as the inverse square of radius. Since the Earth is denser in the center, however, the graph is not a straight line; instead, it is steeper near the center.

Mathematical derivation of this graph.

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Re: Is gravity stronger or weaker at the bottom of a mine shaft?
« Reply #10 on: 30/08/2012 05:04:08 »
Well, William, we are still waiting for that reference, because it would be most interesting to many of us. Are you sure you are not mis-remembering?

Gravity cannot be a push, because there simply is not enough material -- particles -- to create such a push on an astronaut walking on the surface of the moon, let alone to hold the planets in their elliptic orbits as they move around the sun. (This is quite apart from at least a dozen other inconsistencies and contradictions such a theory would introduce).

If, indeed, you are remembering correctly, then your school and teacher -- (was it a physics or general science teacher by the way, or a trade teacher?) -- would deserve the adjectives I have used. It is interesting that none of the leading scientists in the world in this area in the seventies, were lured by the huge fees being offered, to take up similar positions to your "Universal Scientist" and expound their well-researched insights into gravity.

You can press tanks into the ground with ambient radiation, anything a bomb can do, ambient radiation is doing it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #11 on: 30/08/2012 05:15:20 »
The concept of pushing gravity was introduced by Fatio and Lesage around the time of Newton. They postulated that space is permeated with ultra-small, ultra-numerous, ultra-fast gravitons, which bounce off of masses like perfectly resilient spheres; and masses accelerate toward one another because they shield each other from the background of gravitons. They mistakenly believed that two perfect spherical mirrors in a uniformly white room would look slightly darker to each other than the rest of the room. That was the main flaw in their model. A later attempt to fix the model presumed that a fraction of the gravitons are absorbed, while the rest are scattered. The problem with that is that the amount of energy absorbed would be equivalent to the mass of the particle every picosecond. No reasonable mechanism was offered to explain what becomes of that energy. Pushing gravity is discussed extensively at the late Tom VanFlandern's metaresearch.org.
Today, the question of the cause of gravity is simply not asked in "respectable" circles. Minkowski space-time defines the path of light as a straght line, and since gravity affects light, space-time is warped. Most scientists now claim that gravity is caused by the warp of space-time, which is like saying that mountains are caused by the elevation lines on a topographic map. A mathematical description of an effect is not the cause of the effect.
The modern standard gravity formula is based on Newton's shell theorem. For points outside an empty uniform hollow spherical shell, gravity is equal to the gravity of an equivalent point mass at the center of the sphere. As you go farther outside the sphere, the gravity decreases according to the inverse square of distance from the center. For points inside the hollow shell, gravity is zero.
Since a solid sphere consists of concentric shells, the gravity inside the solid sphere at radius a is equal to the gravity of a point mass at the center, having as much mass as all of the shells inside radius a.
If the density of Earth were constant, the gravity inside would follow a straight line graph with zero gravity at the center and 1 g at the surface. Beyond that, it decreases as the inverse square of radius. Since the Earth is denser in the center, however, the graph is not a straight line; instead, it is steeper near the center.

Mathematical derivation of this graph.

Gravity has never affected light. Gravity effects matter, and in turn matter affects light.

That is what was so corn ball about Einsteins crazy theory, if that was even Einsteins theory. The moon is surrounded by a very light atmosphere. The sun is surrounded by an atmosphere.

Lets see now, we look at a sunset, and, the sun looks different then at high noon. What could that be? Maybe the obvious, the atmosphere is at a different thickness, different density, creating a lens like effect. Does that seem new and remarkable? Not to me.

Well Einsteins theory was that light would bend near planets, and as sure as light, will bend over a hot dessert, or at the graduated edges of a planet or moons atmosphere, I am sure, light will bend near bodies in space that are being heated by the sun. Is gravity responsible for the atmosphere being there sure.

So if you want to claim that, you drink milk because there is gravity, you are most probably right as well. But it really has very little to do with the actual cause.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #12 on: 30/08/2012 05:33:00 »
The concept of pushing gravity was introduced by Fatio and Lesage around the time of Newton. They postulated that space is permeated with ultra-small, ultra-numerous, ultra-fast gravitons, which bounce off of masses like perfectly resilient spheres; and masses accelerate toward one another because they shield each other from the background of gravitons. They mistakenly believed that two perfect spherical mirrors in a uniformly white room would look slightly darker to each other than the rest of the room. That was the main flaw in their model. A later attempt to fix the model presumed that a fraction of the gravitons are absorbed, while the rest are scattered. The problem with that is that the amount of energy absorbed would be equivalent to the mass of the particle every picosecond. No reasonable mechanism was offered to explain what becomes of that energy. Pushing gravity is discussed extensively at the late Tom VanFlandern's metaresearch.org.
Today, the question of the cause of gravity is simply not asked in "respectable" circles. Minkowski space-time defines the path of light as a straght line, and since gravity affects light, space-time is warped. Most scientists now claim that gravity is caused by the warp of space-time, which is like saying that mountains are caused by the elevation lines on a topographic map. A mathematical description of an effect is not the cause of the effect.
The modern standard gravity formula is based on Newton's shell theorem. For points outside an empty uniform hollow spherical shell, gravity is equal to the gravity of an equivalent point mass at the center of the sphere. As you go farther outside the sphere, the gravity decreases according to the inverse square of distance from the center. For points inside the hollow shell, gravity is zero.
Since a solid sphere consists of concentric shells, the gravity inside the solid sphere at radius a is equal to the gravity of a point mass at the center, having as much mass as all of the shells inside radius a.
If the density of Earth were constant, the gravity inside would follow a straight line graph with zero gravity at the center and 1 g at the surface. Beyond that, it decreases as the inverse square of radius. Since the Earth is denser in the center, however, the graph is not a straight line; instead, it is steeper near the center.

Mathematical derivation of this graph.

When a girl gets pregnant, and she has no husband or boy friend, they don't ask who did it either. Again what would that kind of behavior have to do with science? Respectable? The English scientists respectfully did not discuss the sameness of lightning and static electricity, until they gave Benjamin Franklin the Copley award, their highest award.

There is no warp of space or time. Saying there is a warp of space and time is as scientific, as making up polite, respectable, excuses for not having a demonstration of something. You cannot demonstrate attraction, because there is no such thing. There is only repulsion, that fools or tricks, non-scientists, into thinking there is such a force. You will never demonstrate it, or even come close to a sane explanation. Because there is no attraction force, only pushing forces.

People never really experiment with vacuums, that is why they get sold all this nonsense, get a bell jar, stick one of the suction cup, kids darts on the inside of the Bell jar wall. It sticks nicely. Now turn on the vacuum pump. It falls right off the wall. Because only the pressure outside of the suction cup was pressing it to the wall. It was never sucked to the wall. It was only and I repeat only pressed to the wall. No other force present. There is no other force in this universe. Science as a whole today has totally failed.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #13 on: 30/08/2012 20:03:58 »
With Einstein's General Relativity gravity isn't a pulling force or a pushing one - it's simply a warping of space which allows everything to travel in what to it is a straight line, the result being that things appear to be attracted together by a force even though there is no force involved. I am puzzled though as to why some physicists say gravity isn't a force while others go on about the difficulty of uniting gravity with the other forces which are much stronger - why are they still treating it as a force?

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #14 on: 31/08/2012 17:52:17 »
I think the hunt for a unifying theory is fundamentally tied up with the precepts of quantum field theory and the need to be able to handle gravity at energies and distances beyond the Planck scale.  GR is only a model - like all physics and we already understand that there are limits at which the model becomes unworkable.  Thus whilst General relativity can be seen as treating gravity as a pseudo-force - we also know that on small enough scales and high enough energies the ideas of GR clash with those of Quantum Mechanics; we thus need a way of treating gravity that might be commensurable with QM, and the ideas of forces and related quantum fields re-emerge.

If we use quantum field theory we can see the possibility of having four fields and four force carrying gauge bosons (EMF/Photon, Strong/Gluon, Weak/W&Z, Gravity/Graviton) which are separate at usual energies, but unifying - per the mathematical model - as scales decrease.  There is already a full unified theory of the ElectroWeak - which starts around 100Gev/10^15K.  There are models for Strong Weak unification - but I am not sure any are really fault free.  The holy grail of a GUT will allow us inter alia to model and understand a stage earlier in the nascent universe and the interior of black holes.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #15 on: 31/08/2012 23:37:45 »
Thanks for explaining that. I keep hearing science stories about the latest data confirming how incredibly accurate GR is, adding ever more weight to idea that it must be right, and I often hear scientists claiming outright that gravity is not a force. It's hard to tell which claims are true and which aren't, but what you have just said makes a lot of sense.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11720
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #16 on: 02/09/2012 07:56:45 »
QM is also 'only a model', or if you like 'models' although preferred for the moment.
One never know, but one like to induce :)

#### William McCormick

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 153
##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #17 on: 02/09/2012 22:01:31 »
With Einstein's General Relativity gravity isn't a pulling force or a pushing one - it's simply a warping of space which allows everything to travel in what to it is a straight line, the result being that things appear to be attracted together by a force even though there is no force involved. I am puzzled though as to why some physicists say gravity isn't a force while others go on about the difficulty of uniting gravity with the other forces which are much stronger - why are they still treating it as a force?

Gravity is just particles of electricity. Electromotive force. You have seen magneforming right? Basically particles of electricity push, matter into new shapes.

This was a piece of straight tubing before the process.

You have seen aluminum repelled by an electromagnet. Even pushed to an electromagnet. It is not any hidden iron in the aluminum. It is just charge. Areas abundant with particles of electricity repel each other.

When you create a bomb, the center of a bomb is vertex of every possible angle from that point. When the bomb raises in voltage, it repels incoming ambient radiation, heading towards that point. Slowing it, making it act like gravity. This effect, will actually push you into the bomb, before the bomb goes off, or expands the air around it. It is perhaps the most ominous feeling you could have as a human being.

The point is that if this effect is left unchecked, the entire universe would be consumed by this area of high voltage. So God in his infinite wisdom, created the bomb to remove the area of high voltage. Disperse it out, so it can no longer slow ambient radiation. And that is the bomb. When the bomb goes off, there is also a gravity like effect, that is not just over pressure. It is an electrical effect. I have stood in explosions to actually feel the difference. I have stood different object near the blast, and watched them get destroyed, when others were unharmed. Different explosions destroy different things.

The earths surface or core is repelling ambient radiation, as the ambient radiation slows, it creates the effect we call gravity. The earth as a quick analogy, is a bomb not quite ready to go off.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Old Theories of Gravity and Mineshafts
« Reply #17 on: 02/09/2012 22:01:31 »