The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity  (Read 5012 times)

David Goff

• First timers
• Posts: 3
Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« on: 20/06/2015 19:05:22 »
Theory of Atmospheric Pressure
An alternative theory to gravity
By David Goff
6/20/2015

My theory is that there is no such thing as gravity. There is only atmospheric pressure and nothing more. First let us look at what we have been taught in school about how the earth was formed and gravity created.
Mr. Newton was hit on the head by a falling apple and realized there must be a force pulling the apple to the ground. He called this force gravity. But something falling to the ground does not mean the force is pulling. It could be a force pushing it to the ground. There could also just be atmospheric pressure. Once gravity had a name, everyone assumed a force was pulling us toward earth and began to try to explain this force. When we look at the evidence however, a force pushing or pulling is out of the question.
The accepted theory is that when the earth was first formed four and half billion years ago, it was very hot. Basically a big ball of molten lava. As time passes, the crust begins to cool. During this cooling process the heavier elements such as uranium sank to the center. The weight of the planet compressed the uranium ball very tight. The ball of uranium (the core) is so heavy that as the earth is rotating on its axis, the core is too heavy and does not turn with the mantle and crust. Thus we have a uranium core spinning one direction and the mantle and crust spinning in the opposite direction thus causing the effect of gravity.
My question for this theory is, if the core spinning in the opposite direction causes gravity, then what was the force that caused the heavy elements to sink to the center in the first place. Are we to believe that the process of creating gravity requires there to already be gravity?
If there was a force pushing or pulling us to the earth then the things with the least amount of mass would fall faster than things with more mass. Take a fan for example, a feather blows away before a rock would. And on the other side of the fan a feather would be drawn to the fan before a rock would. But as we know, items with the most mass are effected by (gravity) more than items with less mass. So there is a problem with the gravity theory. Also if there was a force pulling us to the earth, then the farther away from the earth we go the less the force should have an effect. But as we know, it is opposite of that. The farther away we get, or higher in altitude we go, the stronger the force. And not only should the force weaken the farther away we get, but it should gradually weaken until there is no effect at all. But instead it gets stronger and stronger until you take one step past the atmosphere and all of a sudden no effect. So the only place (gravity) has an effect is within the atmosphere.
This indicates that there is no force pushing or pulling, but rather a pressurized system. In a pressurized system the items with the most mass would be effected more, which is exactly what we have. In a pressurized system, the farther away from the planet we go the effect should be stronger, which is exactly what we have. In a pressurized system there should only be an effect within the atmosphere, which is exactly what we have. Also with a pushing or pulling force, anything with mass should be effected and fall to the ground at some rate. In a pressurized system, only items with mass greater than the surrounding air would fall to the ground, which is exactly what we have. For example, if smoke, gas, or hot air is lighter in mass than the surrounding air it should rise, and it does.
Thus the reason an apple falls to the ground is only because it is heavier than the air around it. I call this force atmospheric pressure.

Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1916
• Thanked: 123 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #1 on: 20/06/2015 19:31:20 »
I hate to break this to you, but someone beat you to it and published 1st.
You need to read posts by and replies to Gazza177.
He will probably cry plagiarism, but welcome your support.

Not sure where you get the idea that the earth's core rotating causes gravity, but no physicist would suggest that.
Also there is no evidence that objects with greater mass fall faster, I think you misunderstand mass and air resistance.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage in this one as it's been done to death in the other threads.
I leave you to your misguided beliefs.

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #2 on: 20/06/2015 20:10:55 »
Are you a troll? Things weigh less the higher you go. only a handful of people on earth would believe us and have made this statement. Forget about that centrifugal theory in the mix. Loada tosh. My aim with our theory is Back to the Future-Hoverboard-Got any ideas?

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #3 on: 20/06/2015 20:53:09 »
Quote from: David Goff
Mr. Newton was hit on the head by a falling apple and realized there must be a force pulling the apple to the ground. He called this force gravity. But something falling to the ground does not mean the force is pulling. It could be a force pushing it to the ground.
There's no real difference in the case of gravity. In other cases where a force is exerted on an object, whether its being pushed or pulled depends on how the force is applied to the body. If the body is compressed when the force is applied then it's being fully pushed. When the force instills tension in the body then its being pulled. In the case of gravity, if the body is small enough compared to the tidal gradients, then it does neither since there will be neither tension or stress in the body. The force of gravity acts on the body at every point of the body simultaneously so as not to cause stress or strain in it. If the object is small enough to be considered a point object then the notion of being pulled or pushed is meaningless.

In physics nobody ever really distinguishes between being pushed or being pulled. That's a layman's term and it arises when someone is moving objects. For example; if someone's car has stalled and they want to get it off the road and they go to the back of the car and exert a force on the back in the direction of the front end of the car then it's said that the car is being "pushed." If instead they get a tow truck and attach a chain to the front and a truck is on the other end of the chain and the truck moves away from the car then it's said to be pulled. That's about the extent of those terms. But you'll probably never see them used in any physics text.

Quote from: David Goff
There could also just be atmospheric pressure. Once gravity had a name, everyone assumed a force was pulling us toward earth and began to try to explain this force.
It is impossible for atmospheric pressure to be confused with gravity since atmospheric pressure acts only at the surface of objects and never inside of it. Such pressure cannot add to yield a net force in one direction so it fails to explain gravity. There's also the problem of why planets have atmospheres. According to physics a planet has an atmosphere because the planets gravitational field holds the gases down and prevents them from escaping the Earth.

Quote from: David Goff
When we look at the evidence however, a force pushing or pulling is out of the question.
Well, as I said, that's never used in physics. But gravity does act in the same exact way that Newton describes. Gravity also keeps planets in elliptical orbit around the Sun. That's something atmosphere can't do. Atmosphere can't account for the positive experimental test results of gravity from the Cavendish Experiment either. It also fails to explain how satellites can be in orbit around the Earth or why a cannon ball follows a parabolic trajectory.

Quote from: David Goff
My question for this theory is, if the core spinning in the opposite direction causes gravity,...
Which it doesn't. Gravity is caused merely by the presence of mass and nothing else.

Quote from: David Goff
... then what was the force that caused the heavy elements to sink to the center in the first place. Are we to believe that the process of creating gravity requires there to already be gravity?
Gravity caused the heavy elements to sink. Just pick up a text on geophysics and it will explain everything to you.

Quote from: David Goff
If there was a force pushing or pulling us to the earth then the things with the least amount of mass would fall faster than things with more mass.
That is absolutely wrong. The force of gravity exerted on a body is proportional to the mass of the body. Therefore the greater the mass the greater the force and hence the greater its ability to accelerate a body. However the greater the mass of a body the slower it will accelerate due to a given force. These effects cancel each other out and it ends up that the acceleration of a body in a gravitational field is independent of the mass of the body. E.g. if r is the distance from the center of the Earth to a body of mass m which is in free fall in the Earth's gravitational field then (keeping in mind that F = ma)

Force of gravity due to Earth (mass M) on body (of mass m) = GMm/r2 = ma

Cancel out the m on each side to give

a = GM/r2

If you plug the measured values of G and r into this equation then you'll get 9.8 m/s2

Quote from: David Goff
Take a fan for example, a feather blows away before a rock would.
But how fast something blows away has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. That has to do with inertia. Instead simply drop the feather. Then you'd see it float to the ground, much slower than how fast the rock would fall. That's due to the drag force due to the air exerting a force on the feather. Take away the air and they'd fall at the same rate. By the way, according to your theory since the International Space Station has an atmosphere inside why isn't there a gravitational field inside? How does it stay in orbit?

In any case, if you were to go to the Boston Museum of Science you could see a tube which has no air in it. There's a vacuum in the tube along with a feather and a rock/ball (whatever). When they're dropped they fall at the same rate. I.e. the feather falls as fast as a brick.

Quote from: David Goff
But as we know, items with the most mass are effected by (gravity) more than items with less mass.
You're wrong. What you've done is to ignore the effect due to the atmosphere called drag.

Quote from: David Goff
So there is a problem with the gravity theory.
Nope. Not at all. Why on Earth would you think that a planet full if genius physicists wouldn't figure out something so trivially obvious had it been true? Do you really think that we're all that dumb?

Quote from: David Goff
Also if there was a force pulling us to the earth, then the farther away from the earth we go the less the force should have an effect. But as we know, it is opposite of that. The farther away we get, or higher in altitude we go, the stronger the force.
You're quite wrong. The gravitational force F on a body (mass m) due to the Earth (mass M) is given by

F GMm/r2

which is an inverse square force meaning that the further away you get from the center of the Earth the lesser the force of gravity is.

Quote from: David Goff
And not only should the force weaken the farther away we get, but it should gradually weaken until there is no effect at all. But instead it gets stronger and stronger until you take one step past the atmosphere and all of a sudden no effect. So the only place (gravity) has an effect is within the atmosphere.
You are incredibly wrong. It's as if you never learned about gravity before you came up with your theory. Everything you claimed here is quite wrong.

What you've ignored is the fact that gravity is responsible for he motion of the planets. Had gravity not been exactly what we think it is they all the experiments we executed would never have been consistent with our theories. And we'd never had been able to send men to the moon or sent probes to the planets.

I recommend that you read the book Gravity from the Ground Up by Bernard Schutz. It's a wonderful book and you'll learn what gravity is really like rather than what you think it's like.

See also - http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0504086.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Was-Einstein-Right-2nd-Edition/dp/0465090869

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #4 on: 20/06/2015 20:55:10 »
I hate to break this to you, but someone beat you to it and published 1st.
You need to read posts by and replies to Gazza177.
He will probably cry plagiarism, but welcome your support.

Not sure where you get the idea that the earth's core rotating causes gravity, but no physicist would suggest that.
Also there is no evidence that objects with greater mass fall faster, I think you misunderstand mass and air resistance.

Anyway, I'm not going to engage in this one as it's been done to death in the other threads.
I leave you to your misguided beliefs.
I decided to make one clear tackle at it and then leave it with no responses to all the misguided ignorant responses that are sure to follow.

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #5 on: 20/06/2015 21:03:53 »
Are you a troll? Things weigh less the higher you go. only a handful of people on earth would believe us and have made this statement. Forget about that centrifugal theory in the mix. Loada tosh. My aim with our theory is Back to the Future-Hoverboard-Got any ideas?
That statement is that gravity doesn't attract!!!

David Goff

• First timers
• Posts: 3
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #6 on: 20/06/2015 22:09:01 »
Well first of all I get the notion that the core causes gravity from how they teach it in school. Also someone on this very site said the same thing, or you can google it. If you do that you will see many people must believe the core causes gravity. Go to physics.org, the very first sentence is, it is believed to be generated deep down in the earths core. Secondly, I am not saying it is caused by the core, I am saying it is not caused by the core. I am not even saying there is a core, there is no evidence of that is there? So no, I am certainly not suggesting the core does anything. And sir, you never read anywhere where I claimed that items with more mass fall faster..read slower...I clearly said that if there was a force (which I clearly do not believe there is) then items with less mass should fall faster, but they do not. Hence I do not believe the force exist. And I do not think the force that keeps planets in orbit is the same force holding us to the planet. You are right about one thing I ignored, drag. That was just a bad example. But it makes no difference, take away the drag. Take 2 pieces of metal the exact same size and shape but with different weights and it works out the same. You make a lot of claims about gravity as if they were fact, just like the teacher saying gravity is caused by the core. But they are not proven facts, merely theories. And for your question about "do I really think scientist could miss something so simple, and do I really think you all are that dumb", well take a good look at past history of science and you tell me. Show me a force you can create that effects two objects of substantial different mass the same. Can you do that? And gazza if this was your idea then kudos to you and no I am not a troll. Also you both should go back and read the agreement you signed to register to this site.

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #7 on: 20/06/2015 22:23:01 »
Well first of all I get the notion that the core causes gravity from how they teach it in school. Also someone on this very site said the same thing, or you can google it. If you do that you will see many people must believe the core causes gravity. Go to physics.org, the very first sentence is, it is believed to be generated deep down in the earths core. Secondly, I am not saying it is caused by the core, I am saying it is not caused by the core. I am not even saying there is a core, there is no evidence of that is there? So no, I am certainly not suggesting the core does anything. And sir, you never read anywhere where I claimed that items with more mass fall faster..read slower...I clearly said that if there was a force (which I clearly do not believe there is) then items with less mass should fall faster, but they do not. Hence I do not believe the force exist. And I do not think the force that keeps planets in orbit is the same force holding us to the planet. You are right about one thing I ignored, drag. That was just a bad example. But it makes no difference, take away the drag. Take 2 pieces of metal the exact same size and shape but with different weights and it works out the same. You make a lot of claims about gravity as if they were fact, just like the teacher saying gravity is caused by the core. But they are not proven facts, merely theories. And for your question about "do I really think scientist could miss something so simple, and do I really think you all are that dumb", well take a good look at past history of science and you tell me. Show me a force you can create that effects two objects of substantial different mass the same. Can you do that? And gazza if this was your idea then kudos to you and no I am not a troll. Also you both should go back and read the agreement you signed to register to this site.
Hi David. Im glad ur not a troll. I thought someone on here was taking the mick out of me. I have for a year now said exactly the same as you and hit a brick wall everytime. I missed what I should have read in the AGREEMENT. I too believe every word you have said. And no I am not stating this is my idea-just trying to answer every statement that comes my way with logic as we all were taught the same thing at school,but the entire world doesn't/wouldnt question most things.
If you ask Einstein-attraction or repulsion-he would say attraction without proof.So back to square 1. They have the mass of the earth using circumference x ?.Its all maths and formulas and equations-no proof,

David Goff

• First timers
• Posts: 3
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #8 on: 20/06/2015 22:31:06 »
gazza I would like to see your theory you published, where can I find it? And no I do not have any hover board ideas at the moment. And you did not miss anything, I was talking to the other guy, I thought there was two of them but it was same guy. I agree, and I cannot believe we go to school and get taught how the core causes gravity and everyone acts like they have never heard it before. I wonder how they explain things lighter than the surrounding air rising.

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #9 on: 20/06/2015 23:15:08 »
Here is what you need to understand gravity.

Stand at a suitably close position (r) and you will find your answer.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2015 23:27:13 by jeffreyH »

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #10 on: 21/06/2015 04:01:45 »
Before we go on I'd like to point out that the science of gravity has been around since Galileo so it's said that the beginnings of the science of gravity started with him. He's said to be the founder of modern science. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Quote
Scientific revolution

Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal[1]) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects accelerate faster.[2] Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that lighter objects may fall more slowly in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.

Quote from: David Goff
If you do that you will see many people must believe the core causes gravity.
All that means is that many people are wrong. What you need to listen to is what is said by those people who spend their lives studying these phenomena and thus know precisely what they're talking about. The only gravity from the core is due to the mass of the core since mass is the source of gravity.

Quote from: David Goff
Go to physics.org, the very first sentence is, it is believed to be generated deep down in the earths core.
I looked there and so nothing of the sort.

Quote from: David Goff
Secondly, I am not saying it is caused by the core, I am saying it is not caused by the core. I am not even saying there is a core, there is no evidence of that is there?
There's plenty of evidence. But you'd have to talk to a geophysicist to find out what that evidence is.

Quote from: David Goff
So no, I am certainly not suggesting the core does anything. And sir, you never read anywhere where I claimed that items with more mass fall faster..read slower...
Actually it's you who needs to read slower because I was responding to your claim that
Quote from: David Goff
If there was a force pushing or pulling us to the earth then the things with the least amount of mass would fall faster than things with more mass.
and in response to that I demonstrated why it's wrong. You're assumption is rooted in the fact that you didn't take the linear dependence of the gravitational force on the mass of the body into account. So your assertion is wrong.

Quote from: David Goff
I clearly said that if there was a force (which I clearly do not believe there is) then items with less mass should fall faster, but they do not. Hence I do not believe the force exist.
And you're wrong because it does exist and is called the gravitational force. I explained the reason it works so why are you still claiming that it doesn't exist? Why not go back and attempt to prove that what I explained is wrong?

Quote from: David Goff
And I do not think the force that keeps planets in orbit is the same force holding us to the planet.
Scientists are never interested in what people think. We're only interested in what people can demonstrate to be the case. You haven't done that whereas Newton and all physicists since him have.

Quote from: David Goff
You are right about one thing I ignored, drag. That was just a bad example. But it makes no difference, take away the drag. Take 2 pieces of metal the exact same size and shape but with different weights and it works out the same.
I don't understand why you insist on ignoring the explanation that I gave of why two objects of different mass fall at the same rate? Let me explain it again in simpler terms. If a body is in a uniform gravitational field (the field near the Earth's surface is very uniform so this is a good approximation) then the gravitational force on a body of mass m in the field is Fg = mg where g is the acceleration due to gravity vector and points in the "down" direction. Newton's second law states that the force on any object is given by F = ma. Equating these gives

F = Fg

F = maFg = mg

or

ma = mg

Cancel out the mass on each side and we get

a = g

which is what all physicists have known since Newton proved it, i.e. the acceleration of a body subject only to the force of gravity will accelerate at a rate which is independent of the mass of the body. Please don't ignore this derivation again.

Quote from: David Goff
You make a lot of claims about gravity as if they were fact, ..
For something to be a fact it has to have been proven. However science is not about proving things. To understand this please see the video that I took of Alan Guth (particle physicist/cosmologist at MIT - creator of the model of the Inflationary Universe) at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Other/Other/DSC_0002.MOV

Gravity is a theory based on postulates. Postulates are propositions assumed to be correct. The validity of the postulates is based on what the theory predicts and is in agreement with experiments. I back up my "claims" with facts based either on logic, experiment or observation as I did above.

Quote from: David Goff
...just like the teacher saying gravity is caused by the core.
Teachers don't say that. If you had a good teacher then the teacher would say that the source of gravity is mass. Nobody knows the cause of gravity as of yet. But your idea of pressure can't explain it at all. E.g. if you have a glass sphere which you evacuate the air out of then there will be zero atmosphere inside. However there will still be a gravitational force on the objects inside the sphere. This is very easy to observe and is done in the lab when students study physics.

Quote from: David Goff
But they are not proven facts, merely theories.
So what. It doesn't mean that there is any doubt about them at all. Physicists have had so much experience with gravity that not one of them thinks of it as being anything but fact. But as I explained above, science is not about proving anything. There has never been and there never will be anything in science that will be "proven" to be true. Such a belief is based on ignorance of what science is and what it can do. You need to study the scientific method. Better yet, study the philosophy of physics. Here is a good start:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf

By the way, you're using the term "theory" incorrectly. You're confusing it with axiom, aka postulate. The term theory means the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
Please don't read merely what I quoted here and think you can walk away from it knowing what the term "theory" means. You should read the entire webpage to understand it.

Quote from: David Goff
And for your question about "do I really think scientist could miss something so simple, and do I really think you all are that dumb", well take a good look at past history of science and you tell me.
That's the mating call of the crackpot. There is nothing in the history of science which agrees with you. You're incorrectly thinking of long ago when science was in its infancy and scientists rarely did such precise experiments and used such theories as they do now. No theory has lasted this long and has worked so well over the last 300 years as the theory of gravity has. It works precisely as stated by Newton and for a more accurate version by Einstein.

Let me explain: back centuries ago when we didn't have the correct instrumentation to determine which theories where right and which were wrong we had to take a lot of things on weak arguments. Now, in modern day science, we don't have to do that anymore. When a theory is being developed, experiments can be done to test these theories. When there's a great deal of evidence to support a theory then the theory becomes well accepted to the point where its reasonable to consider it fact, as in the case of gravity. There is so much evidence that Newton's theory of gravity precisely corresponds to what is observed in nature that there's no reason to believe otherwise. I suspect that the reason you ignored all of the evidence that I mentioned is because you're not willing to admit you're wrong. That evidence includes the Cavendish experiment where the equation of the gravitational force between two bodies, one having mass M and the other having mass m, is given by Fg = GMm/r2 was tested and the results were consistent with that expression. The planets more exactly according to that force law too as do the satellites. It's also the law that got our men to the moon and our probes to other planets. We've even discovered planets by using that law. Had that law been off even by the most insignificant amount then those probes would never have gotten to where we sent them. And in outer space there is gravity and yet there's no atmosphere. You've seen NASA send men to the moon, right. Those men walked on the moon too  and I assume you either know of it or saw it. And there's no atmosphere on the moon either.

Consider a sphere. The weight of the sphere depends on the mass of the sphere, not on the atmospheric pressure. Since the force of the atmospheric pressure acts radially inward at all points on the sphere there's no reason why the force due to the atmosphere would cause it to accelerate in one particular direction, nor would it effect it's weight, i.e. the force it exerts on a scale. In fact you can have two sphere's of exactly the same radius but made of different material, e.g. lead and wood. The lead sphere would weigh a great deal more than the wood sphere. That simply cannot be explained by your idea about atmospheric pressure.

You've put so little thought into your so called theory that it's a waste of time for anyone to pay attention to it. I'm only doing it because this place has become very boring. Otherwise I'd never bother with it. I prefer only to help those who wish to learn physics and have the humility to know their limits and not assume they know better than the entire physics community like you and Gazza do.

Quote from: David Goff
Show me a force you can create that effects two objects of substantial different mass the same. Can you do that?
People can't create forces. Only nature can do that. And nature does it constantly all over the place. It works exactly as I explained. But in any case you're not clear on what you mean by effects two objects of substantial different mass the same. Clearly, the fact that two objects of very different masses falling at the same rate satisfies your requirement and for the reason described above.

Once again, learn about gravity the correct way instead of posting all these ignorant claims. E.g. your claim that gravity causes pressure can't explain why objects always fall in the down direction, i.e. towards the center of the Earth. Also, would you care to explain how satellites can orbit the Earth and how planets orbit the sun and why the equation of gravity F = GMm/r2 works precisely? Any deviations are explained using relativity.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2015 12:25:24 by PmbPhy »

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #11 on: 21/06/2015 04:03:39 »
Here is what you need to understand gravity.

Stand at a suitably close position (r) and you will find your answer.
That's not going to help anybody understand gravity, Jeff. Also, people should never learn GR before they learn Newtonian mechanics first. If they can't grasp Newtonian mechanics then they'll never be able to grasp GR. The math will be beyond them.

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #12 on: 21/06/2015 11:08:03 »
Here is what you need to understand gravity.

Stand at a suitably close position (r) and you will find your answer.
That's not going to help anybody understand gravity, Jeff. Also, people should never learn GR before they learn Newtonian mechanics first. If they can't grasp Newtonian mechanics then they'll never be able to grasp GR. The math will be beyond them.

Do you think it makes a difference in this case? I could have been talking about swiss cheese for all the good it would do. I feel like I'm in groundhog day when reading threads here.

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #13 on: 21/06/2015 11:19:22 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
Do you think it makes a difference in this case? I could have been talking about swiss cheese for all the good it would do. I feel like I'm in groundhog day when reading threads here.
If you want anything to help them understand gravity, then yes. It makes a difference. Do I believe that anything will work with these two? No. That's why I've decided to give up. They have too many concepts all twisted around, such as the notion that if one theory ended up being wrong then all theories which are universally accepted due to high confidence must also be wrong. Very very bad logic.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2015 12:01:21 by PmbPhy »

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4708
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #14 on: 21/06/2015 14:45:05 »
The "theory" is obvious bunkum.

I refer gazza to almost every experimental determination of G. In the laboratory, we measure gravitation as a horizontal force in a vacuum, not a vertical force in air. And to nobody's surprise, it produces the right answer when we try to land a probe on a distant planet or even a comet.

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #15 on: 21/06/2015 15:25:22 »
Quote from: alancalverd
The "theory" is obvious bunkum.
Quite obvious indeed my friend!

Quote from: alancalverd
I refer gazza to almost every experimental determination of G. In the laboratory, we measure gravitation as a horizontal force in a vacuum, not a vertical force in air. And to nobody's surprise, it produces the right answer when we try to land a probe on a distant planet or even a comet.
What they refuse to address is the fact that air pressure is omnidirectional whereas the force of gravity is directed towards the center of the Earth. They also refuse to address the superposition of air pressure and the force of gravity too.

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #16 on: 21/06/2015 18:27:46 »
Quote from: alancalverd
The "theory" is obvious bunkum.
Quite obvious indeed my friend!

Quote from: alancalverd
I refer gazza to almost every experimental determination of G. In the laboratory, we measure gravitation as a horizontal force in a vacuum, not a vertical force in air. And to nobody's surprise, it produces the right answer when we try to land a probe on a distant planet or even a comet.
What they refuse to address is the fact that air pressure is omnidirectional whereas the force of gravity is directed towards the center of the Earth. They also refuse to address the superposition of air pressure and the force of gravity too.
LOL-were going round in circles here.
1.No one can prove the direction of gravity
2.moon and all planets/satellites/stars have an atmosphere
3.when a blob of water is released inside eg-a spacestation with zero gravity-and then air inserted into the bubble followed by a bit more water-the shape is a perfect circle with a outer layer of water,middle layer of air and a core of water.Funny how that replicates basic fundamentals of everything we understand regarding all bodies in the solar system.
4.Newtons law and GR are different
5.Newton and many others did not believe Schiehallion-disproved on all other large mountain ranges-cant be replicated.
6.Cavendish experiment only works with iron(if it works)-disproved
7.If you are all scientists-how come you make comments with no actual proof of your own.landing on comets-when-no one heard anymore of the last attempt didn't they-went all quite.(as far as I am aware)
8.experiments in vacuum.only the oxygen is expelled and a little nitrogen.well you have only removed 40%-so most vacuums could be as much as 60% still occupied.
9.I do realise how this looks-but not once ever has anyone questioned the world we live in.You scientist take it as it is with 2 flawed experiments to convince you.If you researched the experiments you will find these both to be non accepted by many and ridiculous.
10.The fact that your still reading this is boiling your brains with anger,yet you cant prove ATTRACTION.
11.Unless you have been to the other planets,walked the moon,surfed a comet or done a heap of experiments in outer space or used logic instead of theory-without using equations which help predict definite outcomes(probabilities/predictions),you are not seeing the world through an average but inquisitive person eyes.
12.No scientists around the world care about gravity as 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the world would laugh at them so when I ask the question(for the 20th time)-is gravity attraction or repulsion?-Not 1 person on this site can answer that question without using wiki or General Knowledge.
13.A load of immature answers trying to outsmart non-scientists with equations-I can explain music without theory and the movement of sound-no theories needed-FACT FACT FACT.
14.I will conclude that no-one has ever said anybody was wrong-just that no-one has a good enough answer-and you all are still repeating yourselfs time and time.And the sadest thing about ti all,is that this site is your LIFE-Get real and see life for yourself-do the Cavendish experiment(with yourself and an ant/grain of sand) and do the schiehallion experiment yourselfs-I believe you will agree with me that ATTRACTION HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED.I mearly asked points of view and got wiki answers.Do you think people don't research?
If you research the characteristics of O/O2/H2O/O3/O4/He/Iron/steel/concrete and many more-you will find they are all completely different in different combinations.I think air pressure is not the Theory-It is ARE WE ATTRACTED OR REPELLED TO THE EARTH.
Off to find a better site that's open to new theories.we have proved light can move objects-you wouldn't have agreed with that in the past-you do know that right?
I do not mean to sound like I am insulting anyone here at all-your all amazing people-you all started the insults without proof.

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #17 on: 21/06/2015 19:47:50 »
gazza711 - Each line item in that list is utter and complete nonsense. Some of it is clearly shows what a pathetic little thing you are. Anyone who chooses to use ad hominems like you just did doesn't deserve to be shown all their errors so I'm going to leave you steeped in the ignorance that I found you in.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2015 20:00:28 by PmbPhy »

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #18 on: 21/06/2015 20:28:14 »
gazza711 - Each line item in that list is utter and complete nonsense. Some of it is clearly shows what a pathetic little thing you are. Anyone who chooses to use ad hominems like you just did doesn't deserve to be shown all their errors so I'm going to leave you steeped in the ignorance that I found you in.
You r annoyed because you didn't get passed the first problem-which way is the gravitational force.you cant prove it and you know it.there might have been a couple of blown up statements there,but you cant preach what you haven't experienced.the proble m you have is that you haven't got an alternate solution to newtons law and GR.i never did till I saw a helium balloon rise in my front room.it hit the ceiling in the same way objects rest when moved from 1place to another.they rock then rest.i have made the same bold statement you have without proof.were the same.

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #19 on: 21/06/2015 20:57:24 »
Nope. I'm annoyed because you're so too ignorant to understand all the mistakes that you keep making. I already told you I won't make anymore attempts to help you since I've already explained all of your mistakes above. It's not my fault that you're not smart enough or educated enough to understand what I wrote. And you're also a damn fool if you think you could actually drag me into this again with such a transparent attempt at claiming that I can't do something thus thinking that I'd take the bait and argue with you yet again. Only children think like that. Let's face it. Some people will just never understand physics as well as we physicists so stop trying. You stop trying. You're embarrassing yourself.

What I will do is explain one last time an very obvious clue as to why all your nonsense about the atmospheric pressure on an object cannot be responsible for the gravitational force on it. Take two objects of identical shape but very different mass. E.g. a sphere made out of lead while the other is a steel shell having a vacuum inside of it, each having the same radius. Place each on a weight scale to measure it's weight. The weight of an object is defined as the gravitational force on the object. Each has the exact same atmospheric force on it but the lead one weighs a great deal more which means that atmospheric pressure cannot be responsible for the gravitational force.

Each of your items in that silly list of yours has very similar flaws in it, especially that childish nonsense about this site being my life. I only post here a few times a day to help serious students of physics learn physics. Being a professional highly educated physicist myself I'm able to help everyone who has questions in the fields of physics that I'm fluent in, gravity being one such field. Off this site I became a professional math and physics tutor when I became disabled. Before that I worked either as a physicist or as an engineer.

And you? What exactly is your educational background in math and physics?
« Last Edit: 22/06/2015 14:30:26 by PmbPhy »

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #20 on: 22/06/2015 17:26:02 »
By the way. The atmosphere on the moon is so small as to be considered a good vacuum. The atmosphere on the moon is about the same as that which the international space station exists in. The atmospheric pressure inside the station is much greater than that of the moon yet there's no gravitational force in the space station. So your claim that the gravitational field of the moon is caused by its atmosphere is very poor. And again I remind you that the gravitational force has a direction to it since the source of gravity is mass. The gravitational force on objects outside the earths volume are directed towards the center of the earth. If gravity was due to atmospheric pressure then since the net force on an object due to pressure is zero it won't accelerate so any so-called gravitational force on it is zero. A fact that you and your friend seem to have intentionally avoided. In fact you and your friend have never given a mathematical derivation proving anything that you've claimed to be true. All you two have based your arguments on is what you "think" or "believe" to be the case. That's certainly no basis for a scientific theory.

By the way, the fact that physicists and physics students don't do the Cavendish experiment themselves does in no way mean that we're not aware of the results or should for any reason not trust them. They are but one test among many. If you were a physicist you wouldn't make such ignorant comments about doing things for yourselves. There are far too many things that have to be tested that are relegated to experimental physicists. They're the ones who have the time, money, expertise and resources to design and construct experiments. Besides there has been a great deal of evidence of other kinds since that experiment was done including measuring the strength of the gravitational field by placing satellites in orbit. A satellite can only remain at a set distance if its orbital speed is consistent with that derived from assuming a 1/r2 dependence. That is to say that the height that a satellite needs to orbit at is determined by the gravitational force calculated from Newton's law of gravitation. And it has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure of course. The reason satellites can remain in orbit is because there is a gravitational force acting on it given by Fg = GMm/r2. Your buddy there thinks that physicists are too stupid to not have realized that he was right and the thousands of physicists who know this during the last 300 years have all be wrong and that all the experiments, satellites, tides and interplanetary probes were all misinterpreted and his and your notion of atmospheric pressure is right. Even though you have constantly refused to explain this nonsense theory of yours.

E.g. take a crack at explaining tides for us and why our predictions of when there will be a high tide and low tide given to the minute was, while being accurate, was calculated using a wrong theory all these years and then explain how the atmosphere accounts for it and its correlation with the lunar cycles.

There is an article which I sent for callled

Resource Letter PTG-1: Precision Tests of Gravity by Clifford Will, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1240 (2010);
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/78/12/10.1119/1.3481700
Quote
Abstract

This Resource Letter provides an introduction to some of the main current topics in experimental tests of general relativity as well as to some of the historical literature. It is intended to serve as a guide to the field for upper-division undergraduate and graduate students, both theoretical and experimental, and for workers in other fields of physics who wish learn about experimental gravity. The topics covered include alternative theories of gravity, tests of the principle of equivalence, solar-system and binary-pulsar tests, searches for new physics in gravitational arenas, and tests of gravity in new regimes, involving astrophysics and gravitational radiation.
[/quotes]
Since it's quite unclear what you meant when you wrote Newton's law and GR are different (which any moron knows) I can only guess that it means that you don't know a great deal about GR. Therefore I'll explain the usefulness of this article. It's a well known fact that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) is a relativistic theory of gravity. It reduces to Newton's theory of gravity for slowly moving particles and weak gravitational fields. Therefore the correctness of GR means the correctness of Newton's theory within its domain of applicability. The only thing wrong with Newton's theory is in its precision. But that precision is so small that it took over a century to detect it from observations of precession of the orbit of Mercury.

So. What was your evidence that your so-called theory is correct and why would there he a non-zero net force on a body due to atmospheric pressure and why is it directed to the center of the Earth? I await your brilliant response.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2015 17:39:21 by PmbPhy »

gazza711

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 144
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #21 on: 22/06/2015 21:50:41 »
By the way. The atmosphere on the moon is so small as to be considered a good vacuum. The atmosphere on the moon is about the same as that which the international space station exists in. The atmospheric pressure inside the station is much greater than that of the moon yet there's no gravitational force in the space station. So your claim that the gravitational field of the moon is caused by its atmosphere is very poor. And again I remind you that the gravitational force has a direction to it since the source of gravity is mass. The gravitational force on objects outside the earths volume are directed towards the center of the earth. If gravity was due to atmospheric pressure then since the net force on an object due to pressure is zero it won't accelerate so any so-called gravitational force on it is zero. A fact that you and your friend seem to have intentionally avoided. In fact you and your friend have never given a mathematical derivation proving anything that you've claimed to be true. All you two have based your arguments on is what you "think" or "believe" to be the case. That's certainly no basis for a scientific theory.

By the way, the fact that physicists and physics students don't do the Cavendish experiment themselves does in no way mean that we're not aware of the results or should for any reason not trust them. They are but one test among many. If you were a physicist you wouldn't make such ignorant comments about doing things for yourselves. There are far too many things that have to be tested that are relegated to experimental physicists. They're the ones who have the time, money, expertise and resources to design and construct experiments. Besides there has been a great deal of evidence of other kinds since that experiment was done including measuring the strength of the gravitational field by placing satellites in orbit. A satellite can only remain at a set distance if its orbital speed is consistent with that derived from assuming a 1/r2 dependence. That is to say that the height that a satellite needs to orbit at is determined by the gravitational force calculated from Newton's law of gravitation. And it has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure of course. The reason satellites can remain in orbit is because there is a gravitational force acting on it given by Fg = GMm/r2. Your buddy there thinks that physicists are too stupid to not have realized that he was right and the thousands of physicists who know this during the last 300 years have all be wrong and that all the experiments, satellites, tides and interplanetary probes were all misinterpreted and his and your notion of atmospheric pressure is right. Even though you have constantly refused to explain this nonsense theory of yours.

E.g. take a crack at explaining tides for us and why our predictions of when there will be a high tide and low tide given to the minute was, while being accurate, was calculated using a wrong theory all these years and then explain how the atmosphere accounts for it and its correlation with the lunar cycles.

There is an article which I sent for callled

Resource Letter PTG-1: Precision Tests of Gravity by Clifford Will, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1240 (2010);
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/78/12/10.1119/1.3481700
Quote
Abstract

This Resource Letter provides an introduction to some of the main current topics in experimental tests of general relativity as well as to some of the historical literature. It is intended to serve as a guide to the field for upper-division undergraduate and graduate students, both theoretical and experimental, and for workers in other fields of physics who wish learn about experimental gravity. The topics covered include alternative theories of gravity, tests of the principle of equivalence, solar-system and binary-pulsar tests, searches for new physics in gravitational arenas, and tests of gravity in new regimes, involving astrophysics and gravitational radiation.
[/quotes]
Since it's quite unclear what you meant when you wrote Newton's law and GR are different (which any moron knows) I can only guess that it means that you don't know a great deal about GR. Therefore I'll explain the usefulness of this article. It's a well known fact that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) is a relativistic theory of gravity. It reduces to Newton's theory of gravity for slowly moving particles and weak gravitational fields. Therefore the correctness of GR means the correctness of Newton's theory within its domain of applicability. The only thing wrong with Newton's theory is in its precision. But that precision is so small that it took over a century to detect it from observations of precession of the orbit of Mercury.

So. What was your evidence that your so-called theory is correct and why would there he a non-zero net force on a body due to atmospheric pressure and why is it directed to the center of the Earth? I await your brilliant response.
You are a great man for answering the need of others.its a rare attribute and I think I need to look into a few more things.my childish comments are a result of frustrating answers where the obvious is stated.
I have no experiments-just curiosity.
No more from me.

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4708
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #22 on: 22/06/2015 23:18:58 »
Quote
There are far too many things that have to be tested that are relegated to experimental physicists.

Relegated??? Surely you mean elevated? I throw down the gauntlet and demand satisfaction for the offence, Sir!

Lasers at dawn! Or rather, I get to use a laser and you get to critique a seminal paper by Einstein on the hypothetical possibility of coherent stimulated emisson.

adventurini

• First timers
• Posts: 8
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #23 on: 08/01/2016 18:09:53 »
I have never posted here before, but I feel I can contribute to this thread.

I think you are correct. I do not believe that gravity as a force exists. I think it is actually kind of ridiculous to think that it does, even though it is the opinion of the masses. And the problem you have refuting the masses is that instead of thinking and pondering about the alternative, most will defer to the smartest person in the room, and then use those opinions as evidence. And in this case, it is a guy that died 60 years ago.

Einstein came up with his theories on gravity in a thought experiment. He realized there was a relationship between mass and gravity and did his best to suggest why. But he is wrong.

Gravity works as far as an explanation is concerned. But as far as logic is concerned, it violates every principle. In order for gravity to exist, you must have evidence of why, not just an explanation of how.

Electromagnetism as a force exists because of charges between protons and electrons. Gravity exists because... Einstein said. There are no particles that provide any evidence of their existence.

Gravity is just the experience of atmospheric pressure as a result of the gases in our atmosphere being attracted to the extremely charged core of the earth. Plain and simple.

A lot of posters say mass has gravity. Show me. You cannot say mass HAS gravity. Masses do not have forces. They exert forces on other objects. So then, what do masses have that exerts gravity?

Nothing. They have charges that attract other charges that in turn apply forces on objects when things get in between those charges.

adventurini

• First timers
• Posts: 8
Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #24 on: 08/01/2016 18:13:51 »
Think of this, when you suck water into a straw and remove the atmosphere above the water, gravity no longer works. How can that be? How can gravity lose its ability to pull water out of a straw if you remove the atmosphere and cover it with your finger?

Although you will find answers to this using gravity as a concept, it will be contradictory.

So answer this question... On days of higher pressure and lower pressure, you will weigh different. Atmospheric pressure is not involved in the equation of weight, yet it changes it. So my question to you is... How much? How much is gravity and how much is atmospheric pressure. I have the answer.

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theory of Atmospheric Pressure an alternative theory to gravity
« Reply #24 on: 08/01/2016 18:13:51 »

Login
Login with username, password and session length