The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: gravity proven to not exist as a pulling force/mass etc-untrue  (Read 5409 times)

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
why is it that no-one can define what keeps us forced to the earths surface.,many theories,but all based on what you've been taught.if someone like me who has no knowledge of physics and chemistry(basic I mean)can explain this and prove it,what does that say about what we are taught.theyre just theories.the perfect example is the weight thrown into a round flexible trampoline(blue typically,and the planets(marbles) spinning round like pennies in a round funnel.ludacris.


 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: what is forcing us to stay on the earths surface
« Reply #1 on: 09/04/2014 20:30:09 »
If the question is what force is holding us down, as well as holding the earth together, and keeping the atmosphere around Earth, that would be Gravity.  Unfortunately determining exactly what causes gravity is far more difficult. 

The more existential, philosophical question is why we don't have colonies on the Moon, Mars, Venus, Europa, and elsewhere.  Or, perhaps inhabiting zeppelins permanently floating in the sky.  I have no doubt it will come in the future.  The technology is close to supporting a permanent remote colony away from Earth.  Yet, the environment everywhere except on Earth is very marginal for supporting "life", and will involve extreme engineering adaptations.  The costs would be literally astronomical, and likely would not have any short-term economic benefit.  Any true benefit would be just to satisfy our own curiosity which is hard to justify multiple billions, or perhaps trillions of dollars of investment.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
gravity is buoyancy-end of.if its not electrical/magnetic,then its something else.im only putting this on a forum because no one in the world would agree with me.

What pulls everything to the earth?molecules in general.
every gas has a different buoyancy.every material in the world has common elements in them.metal is heavier than us because it has more o2 molecules than us.any gas in numbers/sq inch for example makes it heavier/less buoyant.

If you release a helium balloon in your house,it will hit your ceiling and bounce a few times.just like a tennis ball bounces on land-exactly the same.if a toy car was made from balloon material and filled with helium,floated to your ceiling and pushed along-presto-exactly the same as on the ground.

so water is 2hydrogen and 1oxygen.iron I believe I read somewhere had 4oxygen molecules.more molecules to force down to the earth from above/outside our living sphere of the earth.
im no scientist,but merely trying to build the mcfly hoverboard and looked into the whole (theory!!!!!) of gravity-and no real answer.no one knows what gravity is at all.

so,if all that is heaviest,is actually the opposite(lightest) and the forces above the oxygen sphere-eg-helium sphere-ionsphere etc.the outer sphere is the lightest gas ever-strange that.so,space is proved its not a vacuum,its probably the thing that is lighter than helium.
Have I lost you yet-im not good at explaining things.

So,what my point is all along,is that the gases above us are forcing us to the ground.thats why no one can defy gravity-only using air(or ions) as a force in any instance.

I believe I am the only human to think this,and if anybody took this from me as theyre theory and got a nobel-i will find you!!!!

Ok,if your still reading-why does the moon orbit the earth and the solar system exist?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
my theory on this is proved in freshwater areas-eg lakes etc.they don't have tides.they do have things that are called geotides(I think),but funny it doesn't have tides.The moon orbits us due to sodium molecules attracting each other.the moon also has an atmosphere,so which is made of sodium.so the solar system is balanced maybe by different gases repeling/attaracting each other

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITONS PEOPLE!!!!

im a chef,not a scientist.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: gravity theory-what is gravity-you heard it here first
« Reply #4 on: 12/10/2014 17:22:11 »
Gravity is just matter's expression of love. If you love the moon enough, you can just float right up there.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: gravity theory-what is gravity-you heard it here first
« Reply #5 on: 12/10/2014 18:55:17 »
say no more.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
my theory on this is proved in freshwater areas-eg lakes etc.they don't have tides.they do have things that are called geotides(I think),but funny it doesn't have tides.The moon orbits us due to sodium molecules attracting each other.the moon also has an atmosphere,so which is made of sodium.so the solar system is balanced maybe by different gases repeling/attaracting each other

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITONS PEOPLE!!!!

im a chef,not a scientist.

There are also no such things as croutons. It's all made up. And when your pies are squared!! Hey now, who wants square pies?
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 21:06:15 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Ive left a few questions on this site and all i get answered is flannel!

If u read my posts,no one can answer my theories with a good arguement.

I said that gravity is not an attractive force at all!

We dont get pulled to the ground.

Gallileo proved this is his bowlinf ball/feather experiment in a 99% vac chamber.

Would love to have ur points of view
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: gravity proved to not exist
« Reply #8 on: 07/11/2014 17:32:13 »
We don't get pulled to the ground, but the ground gets pulled towards us.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: gravity proved to not exist
« Reply #9 on: 07/11/2014 17:43:15 »
Thanks for the quick reply.
Please explain?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
gravity proven to not exist as a pulling force/mass etc-untrue
« Reply #10 on: 08/11/2014 11:46:58 »

Posts: 18
View Profile
 Email
Ive left a few questions on this site and all i get answered is flannel!

If u read my posts,no one can answer my theories with a good arguement.

I said that gravity is not an attractive force at all!

We dont get pulled to the ground.

Gallileo proved this is his bowlinf ball/feather experiment in a 99% vac chamber.

Would love to have ur points of view
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Perhaps that explains why I keep floating off into space - everyone else is wrong, and they fall over through ignorance.

Here come the men in white coats again.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Typical.cant even agree that gravity can not be explained.im trying to answer the biggest question of all.and i believe im right.thing is,u cant challenge my view without a formula.a remark as dumb as that wont invent the hoverboard mcfly style.dumbass!
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Okay, so you want serious answers? We don't know what gravity is, but there are some theories which attempt to answer the question and one of them might be right. The most popular one is Einstein's, so I'll comment on that for now. In your post at the top, you said:-

Quote
the perfect example is the weight thrown into a round flexible trampoline(blue typically,and the planets(marbles) spinning round like pennies in a round funnel.ludacris.

You are attacking an explanation that is frequently used and put across as if it is an accurate representation of how Einstein's gravity works, but it is actually a faulty explanation which is aimed at people of low intelligence, and scientists tend to assume that the public are stupid, so they simply throw the standard poor explanation at them time and time again. People like you (i.e. intelligent people) then take these scientists at their word and think they're talking rubbish, and that's because they are talking rubbish. They are stating things as if they are facts when they are actually white lies. They don't intend to mislead, but are giving simple explanations aimed at simple people who will never think any further than this.

When you see the rubber sheet with the weight thrown into the middle of it and the balls running round in circles and ellipses, you have sufficient wit to ask yourself, "would that still work if you took away the Earth's gravity and ran this in deep space?" Of course it wouldn't. If the shape of the curved rubber sheet was the only thing dictating the paths of the balls across it, they would all follow the same path regardless of the speed they're rolled at so long as they're rolled in exactly the same direction, and they would never get trapped in orbit inside the dent unless the walls went vertical. So you have correctly calculated that this model they push is wrong. But the model is not the same as the theory - it is merely a very simplified parallel for the theory which is highly misleading.

So, how does Einstein's gravity really work? Well, there is a difficulty in explaining it as you have to be able to think in an extra dimension, and most people have severe difficulty in doing that (which is why the scientists rarely bother to try explaining things and simply drag out the old rubber sheet analogy instead). What I want you to do now is imagine time as if it is a space dimension. When a planet goes round a star in its orbit, it isn't drawing out circles in spacetime, but a helix - it never returns to the same place, but follows the path of a stretched spring. This means that the curvature of spacetime doesn't need to be extreme to steer the planet along that curved path. It's more complicated still though, because the structure of this spacetime is such that two things cannot move in the same direction along the same path at the same speed - a higher speed will take it on a different route through the time dimension, and this means that when the two objects pass through the same point at different speeds in what looks to us like the same direction, they are not actually going in the same direction. Each one will be steered on a different path which will lead it to have a different orbit. This is hard to explain in words, and it's hard to explain even with diagrams and video, because we don't have enough dimensions to work with to model this clearly.

I don't accept Einstein's model, but for very different reasons from yours. Your objections to it are based on attacking misleading explanations (often given by top scientists) which are clearly wrong, but Einstein's model does actually work mathematically in so far as every object that moves through his kind of warpable spacetime really can follow what is essentially a straight line written across a curved fabric, and this can create the illusion of a force of gravity. His theory warps spacetime in order to turn a force into a non-force. If you warp it a different way, you could reinstate gravity as a force and maybe claim that one of the other forces isn't a real force instead (I wonder if that would be viable).

So, if you want to go on attacking Einstein's model of gravity, you need to do some work to get to grips with what his model actually is and not be misled by the shoddy explanations that are trotted out by people who should know better. It's not your fault that you've been barking up the wrong tree, but theirs, so you are fully justified in your attack of the nonsense they push. But the way ahead is hard, and it will take a lot of thinking for you to get a proper understanding of the real theory before you're in a position to take it to bits. If you decide to go on with it, I wish you every success.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
David Cooper-You have made my day.

I do understand the model now.I agree with your explanation fully.I cant knock anything you have said and totally see what you are saying.I have wanted a polite and constructive conversation with someone for ages.

Your name looks familiar like you have commented before on something I said.

So my theory does not disprove Einstein,but givin gravity a different character.

I don't think gravity is about mass.a bigger mass exerts a force etc etc etc.

I would go into my theory of what happens in space another time.

My theory about gravity on earth is that all the gases above our heads is what pushes us down.Would you like me to explain?

Gavin
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Quote
My theory about gravity on earth is that all the gases above our heads is what pushes us down.Would you like me to explain?

Can your theory account for what happens in a vacuum where things fall without being pushed down by gas?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
well.only a true vacuum would probably stop anything moving towards the ground.Ive read that a true vacuum is hard to source anywhere-even space.

I saw a youtube clip called to float a balloon w/o helium.a balloon was inflated by a guy to a fist size.Then tied up and placed into another empty balloon.a gas solution of warm water and dry ice was then forced into the second balloon and that balloon tied up.the result is that the first balloon floated within the second.

Hmmm.

What would pull anything upwards can do the exact opposite.This whole episode of me changing the worlds perception is to create the mcfly hoverboard.weird-i know.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
If your theory was correct, shouldn't the weight of an object go down as you pump air out of the room? If you pump half the air out, would they weigh half as much as normal? In real experiments you can pump 99% of the air out and the weight of the object doesn't change.

For your hoverboard though, this doesn't matter. All you need to do is build something like a drone using fans to keep it off the ground and with a section you can stand on. As technology improves, these may become viable for practical use, though personally I'd rather have one with a seat on/in it and an aerodynamic fairing which keeps the cold air off, makes it more efficient and offers protection in a crash.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Hi David Cooper.I feel a bit stupid here as I just realised that the feathers and balloon experiment I watched was in slow motion-lol.So,indeed,the objects acceleration don't change.Thus proving that a vacuum doesn't change things.

Ive read about buoyancy force.That would be the subject here.

If a large air tight ball was pulled to the bottom of the ocean,there would be a negative gravity force at work pushing it back to the surface.water resistance would slow it down ofcourse.But its upward force would be fast I guess.

The hoverboard trick was more about the idea from back to the future.Using static generators underneath the board (on a small scale) to create a + or - charge under the board.then creating a surface insulated from the earth,charging it to the same polarity as underneath of board.Same polarity repulsion.

Need to research a bit more on my gravity theory,but chuffed ive had a mature response from yourself.The whole subject on gravity is interesting.

I think the attraction of all objects is like the water droplet fusing with the one next to it.as if natures common elements feel the need to attract one another.

Question-1
If we were on a atmosphereless planet in the solar system,wouldnt we weigh nothing?
My answer is yes as there is no atmosphere.

If so,i will answer your question from last post-

The objects weights stay more or less the same with/without air.Im glad you proved this to avoid me believing the wrong thing.So I am agreeing with you totally.Thank you for enlightening me.

Question-2
What is still making the objects fall to the ground in the vacuum?
My Answer-It didn't make a difference in/out of the vacuum chamber.So gravity still applies.

So,im still on the mission of proving that our atmosphere is doing all this work.

I can only speculate that all things on earth were made at ground air pressure(high pressure),so were all pushed to the high pressure areas-eg-the ground.everything on earth is a compressed mixture of O2,Hydrogen and many more elements.I asked why 1" cube of metal weighed more than a 1" cube of water.The main differences were,that there were 4 oxygen atoms in iron,and only 1 oxygen atom in water.

Oxygen only makes up 21% of our atmosphere,so the oxygen layer of earth could be within the earth?Just like trees turn bad air into good.

What about the trick of finding water using a stick-interesting.Like element at work here maybe.

Lol

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: gazza711
why is it that no-one can define what keeps us forced to the earths surface.
That's not true at all. We can define it. We define gravity as that which causes the force between two particles, one of mass M and the other of mass m as

F = -GMm/r2

This is the expression of the gravitational force between the two particles. One property of this force is that it obeys the superposition principle. This means that if F1 is the force on a particle due to particle 1 and F2 is the force due to particle 2 then the total force on the particle is the vector sum of the two forces, i.e.

F = F1 + F2

Quote from: gazza711
..,but all based on what you've been taught.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Of course its based on what we've been taught. Each physicist doesn't simply reinvent theories of gravity. That'd be an incredible waste of time for everyone. Especially since nobody has ever come up with a theory which is better than Einstein's general theory of relativity (GR).

Quote from: gazza711
if someone like me who has no knowledge of physics and chemistry(basic I mean)can explain this and prove it,what does that say about what we are taught.theyre just theories.the perfect example is the weight thrown into a round flexible trampoline(blue typically,and the planets(marbles) spinning round like pennies in a round funnel.ludacris.
That's just plain wrong. Creating theories is what physicists do. That's their job and its the hard part of physics. The easy part of physics is using it. That's supposed to be easy. Think of the analogy with cars. You have to be a mechanical engineer to design and build a car. But they'd be useless if a degree in mechanical engineering was required in order to use them.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Ive read about buoyancy force.That would be the subject here.

That's good. You now need to get a proper understanding of how buoyancy relates to gravity. If you have a hydrogen or helium-filled balloon on the moon and you drop it from a height, it will fall and land on the surface. If you have a tank here on Earth filled with hydrogen at normal air pressure, a helium-filled balloon would again fall through that. If you fill the tank with carbon dioxide instead and release an air-filled balloon in it, that balloon will rise to the top. On the moon, balloons filled with different gases of all these kinds (and of any mixtures of them) will all fall at the same speed and land on the surface. You could weigh them on a set of scales and determine how heavy they are, and all of them will have a positive weight. The role of gravity in this is that it tries to pull all of these things down, but a gas/liquid that is more dense than another will be pulled down through another that is less dense because it will press down with more force than the other gas/liquid can push back up with. The force is the same per proton/neutron throughout all these substances, but the more of them there are in a given amount of space, the greater the force the material will be able to apply downwards per square inch (or any other unit of area).

To help you see the mechanism more clearly, imagine a field (of grass) with lots of children in it. Along one edge of it is a long table covered in sweets (or "candies" might be a better word for American readers). The children are all attracted to the same end of the field, so we will call that direction "down". All of the children are pulled towards the table equally strongly. Now let's try to change the densities. We can introduce cylinders which the children have to stand inside. All of the cylinders are of the same diameter as each other, but some may have only one child standing in them while others may have two, three or more. The ones with more children in them will be better at pressing in towards the table whenever they compete against cylinders with fewer children in them, so they will gravitate towards the "bottom of the heap" (meaning closest to the table). The children are all trying to move directly "downwards" (meaning towards the table). Any sideways moves that they make will be the result not of them trying to push themselves sideways, but of deflections off other cylinders as they press against them. The key thing to understand here is that gravity pulls everything down, but when things that are being pulled down come into contact with each other, they create forces against each other in directions other than down. When a book is sitting on a table, gravity causes the book to press down against the table, but the table also presses back up against the book because it cannot move downwards to get out of the way of the book. There is a balance of forces between the book and the table, but the only force being put into this system to cause that is the gravitational one which is applied downwards.

So, all the forces in the above system which apply in directions other than downwards are the result of contact between things as they press against each other, but the only input force is directly downward. There is no anti-gravity component to it.

Quote
If a large air tight ball was pulled to the bottom of the ocean,there would be a negative gravity force at work pushing it back to the surface.water resistance would slow it down ofcourse.But its upward force would be fast I guess.

I hope you can see now that that "negative gravity" force is no such thing. It is a downward gravity force that is powering this by pulling water down under the air-filled ball.

Quote
I think the attraction of all objects is like the water droplet fusing with the one next to it.as if natures common elements feel the need to attract one another.

That's a different force causing that, a leakage from the forces that hold the components of atoms together.

Quote
Question-1
If we were on a atmosphereless planet in the solar system,wouldnt we weigh nothing?
My answer is yes as there is no atmosphere.

You measure weight with scales. You would have a positive weight if you're standing on a planet. A hydrogen-filled balloon would have a positive weight too if it's weighed on the moon or in a vacuum chamber on Earth. You can only get a negative weight for that balloon if you weigh it while it's in a heavier gas or a liquid, but you're not measuring any anti-gravity effect because the input force is downwards on the heavier gas or liquid as well as downwards on the hydrogen in the balloon.

Quote
I can only speculate that all things on earth were made at ground air pressure(high pressure),so were all pushed to the high pressure areas-eg-the ground.everything on earth is a compressed mixture of O2,Hydrogen and many more elements.I asked why 1" cube of metal weighed more than a 1" cube of water.The main differences were,that there were 4 oxygen atoms in iron,and only 1 oxygen atom in water.

It doesn't matter what pressure things were made at. What matters is that when the universe shoves them all together, the denser things will tend to push their way to the centre while the less dense things get pushed out to the edge.

Quote
Oxygen only makes up 21% of our atmosphere,so the oxygen layer of earth could be within the earth?Just like trees turn bad air into good.

Not sure where you're trying to go with that.

Quote
What about the trick of finding water using a stick-interesting.Like element at work here maybe.

No one can do this other than by reading the land by eye and using skill to judge where water is most likely to pool beneath the surface. Camels can smell water under the surface directly though, so it may be that some people can do this too, though it's unlikely.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 19:07:53 by David Cooper »
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
David Cooper and others-Ive never been so satisfied with an answer or answers.Even to take the time to answer each of my questions is more than I could have asked and u did just that.I think I have a lot of research to do.This all started with the coral castle phenomenon(ed leedskalnin).his methods derived possibly from egyptian pictures of people doing electrolysis back in the old days.the point being is that theres a lot we don't know about a lot of things.

ed leedskalnin claimed he could make monolith objects levitate or make lighter in order to move them into sometimes perfect geometries,like the entrance door was a 10tonne rock on two small pivots allowing a boy to push the door open with little effort.

So my next question is-why do lakes or still water masses not have normal tides(not seiches).I know its because the volume of water is not large enough to see the difference.

But the other difference between the sea and lake is salt/sodium in sea and no salt/sodium in lake.Then finding out the moons atmosphere is mainly sodium?

just an observation.

gav

 
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
If you had a rocky planet that's a perfect sphere with water covering that surface to an equal depth all round, you might then have perfect tides with the sea rising as the moon passes overhead and again rising when it passes underneath, but our planet has continents that get in the way, so the tides are blocked by that and can't roll right the way round. What happens instead is that tides are resonations within oceans and seas. In some places there are four high tides a day instead of the normal two, while in others there is only one high tide a day. The high tide in one location in an ocean may coincide with the moon being directly overhead or directly underneath, but in another part the high tides may be out by a full six hours, and that's because what we're seeing is oscillations powered by the moon (and sun to a lesser degree - we can ignore that for this discussion), but I suspect the extent of the tides we see (meaning the height they rise and fall) may not be caused by a single passage of the moon overhead, but by thousands of passes adding up over time. This is a guess on my part though, so be careful not to take it as fact and repeat it anywhere.

With an ocean or sea, you have a large body of water which curves round part of the planet, so there is greater potential for one end to rise towards the moon than at the other side where it would have to rise at a different angle. In a lake there is not such a difference in angle from one side/end to the other, so the whole lake will try to rise equally and not actually be able to rise at all. Well, there will be a tiny difference, but there's a double effect here, because it isn't just that the body of water is smaller, but that its surface is less curved too such that lines going straight upwards from either side/end are close to parallel, whereas with an ocean the angle between these lines can be huge - in the case of the Pacific, it's 180 degrees in places.

I've never heard about the moon having a sodium atmosphere, but it doesn't sound at all likely. The solar wind strips any gas away from the moon as soon as it comes out of the rock, and I don't know what kind of gas sodium would have to be a part of either, but it would be stripped away like any other gas.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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