The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Atmospheric pressure and its effect  (Read 57785 times)

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #50 on: 10/05/2007 19:01:24 »
Quote
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space.  Every one of the “spheres”, from the troposphere on up, get lighter, and they follow upward successively in lightness and thin-ness, all the way up to where the atmosphere “ends”.

No this is a simplification. For a change I'll quote Wicki (as I like the succinct way it is described):

Heterosphere
Below the turbopause at an altitude of about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere has a more-or-less uniform composition (apart from water vapor) as described above; this constitutes the homosphere.[4] However, above about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere begins to have a composition which varies with altitude. This is essentially because, in the absence of mixing, the density of a gas falls off exponentially with increasing altitude, but at a rate which depends on the molar mass. Thus higher mass constituents, such as oxygen and nitrogen, fall off more quickly than lighter constituents such as helium, molecular hydrogen, and atomic hydrogen. Thus there is a layer, called the heterosphere, in which the earth's atmosphere has varying composition. As the altitude increases, the atmosphere is dominated successively by helium, molecular hydrogen, and atomic hydrogen. The precise altitude of the heterosphere and the layers it contains varies significantly with temperature.


100km is a long way up! And after that there are changes in concentrations but no layers composed of single gases.


Quote
Pascal’s law is about pressures that exceed fluid and/or atmospheric pressure

No it isn't. It applies to any sealed container - regardless of the pressure oustide the container. It is just as applicable to a container holding only a few millibars of pressure - so it works for a Condenser under a Turbine.

Quote
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space.

You're not really suggesting that there is a measureable stratification of molecular gases in a tube long enough to hold in your hand (there isn't)? Or did I not explain the example I was presenting very well? My thought-experiment was intended to convey the idea of tube, say a metre long, which you carry up and down a montain. Perhaps go back and reread it from this point of view?

Quote
Come on, Batroost.  Your example is a red herring, and I suspect that you know it. Are you testing me?

No this is a wholly sincere attempt to get you to see/accept the difference between using an average value and correting to datum conditions. Your previous post clearly used the latter to justify the former and I believe this to be a fundamental error in scientific method. As I say, sincere - but perhaps we're talking at cross purposes...(see below):

Quote
You’re still thinking that I’m saying that air “pushes” things down?

Yes. I can't understand what you're saying any other way. How else can the 'weight' of air above a falling body make it accelerate downwards? Or have I mis-understood your ealier statements?

Quote
We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc.

Quote
In the "earth's atmosphere" part of my theory, everyone seems to keep demanding I must match and explain its workings at every global location’s elevation, weather condition, price of coffee, local hair style, etc. It looks like I’ll be dead long before we get down to the serious consideration that there is a larger fundamental theory here, that everyone is bypassing in an effort to defend traditional scientific “dogma”. If I’m wrong, I will learn that I’m wrong, (and I will learn from that) eventually, but I’m humbly asking anyone to help me finalize this

Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:

(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?

And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then

(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?

Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached.

As ever, best wishes,

Batroost
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #51 on: 10/05/2007 19:05:01 »
Quote
The pressure thing across doors can be a real issue even in a much less effectively sealed building. I work in a chemistry lab, with 22 fume hood extractors running full time and lowering the pressure in the lab. We have active pumps moving air back into the lab, but when these shut down for maintenance several things happen:
- All the flow alarms go off... the pressure indoors is too low for the extrctors to work against effectively.
- Any open windows produce a howling draft, taking anything not nailed down off the worksurface and onto the floor.
- Last time it happened I and the other girls couldn't get the door open against the pressure in the corridor (in my defence my arm was in plaster at the time) and we had to get one of the guys to push it really hard and then hold it until we were ready to let it slam.

No real relevance to topic, but it was quite striking at the time.

Thanks Rosy, good point. We have some other large steel doors at work and lots of HVAC. As you say sometimes just a few millibars pressure difference across the door can make them very hard to move - once you get them 'cracked' and the pressure equalises you're OK though.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #52 on: 10/05/2007 19:46:19 »
(Simplifying your first question) -
Q - “How can (changeable) air pressure be responsible for (unchangeable) gravity?”

A - The answer that my theory produces, is that air pressure does not “change” the properties of mass in any way, because air (except as weather, etc.) can not “change” mass.

That change, due to the weather, is exactly the change I mean. It's quite a big change and it doesn't affect the weight of things.

(Simplifying your second question) -
Q - “How can a specific (measured) air pressure value be responsible for gravity that varies at the poles or the equator?”

A - The answer that my theory produces is the same as my first answer, but, with this qualification:

Regardless of whether we are seeking either a specific (measured) air pressure value, or (making its comparison to) the scientifically created and recognized Datum, (or “global standard value”), the value produced by any specific measurement taken, is always a “product” of that one, (and only that one), location, as measured under the specific air pressure of the moment, as governed by the specific weather conditions existing at that location at the moment.

Let's start out by saying what we are talking about. I mean that I can get a rock and hang it on a spring balance. I can measure the length of the spring. That gives me a measure of the force of gravity.
I can also measure air pressure with, for example, a capacitance manometer or an aneroid barometer.
If I measure the length of the spring at sea level here in the UK and note the pressure then (say I do it when thepressure is unusually low) then I go to the top of the Alps and wait until the weather happens to be high pressure so the pressure is the same as it was back at sea level in the UK the length of the spring will be shorter. I can carry on doing this all over the world and the results I get tally with Newtonian gravity.

Same air pressure, different gravity.
Unless you are saying that the whole of earth's atmosphere (which is *broadly constant) contributes to my little experiment I can't see how you can explain how something that stays the same can account for something that changes.
If you do think that all the worlds air contributes, but you don't seem to believe in gravity, what force is it that the air uses to influence my experiment in the UK when most of the worlds air is many miles away?

*Also, the overall average pressure of the earth's atmosphere changes as we move towards and away from the sun; the mean temperature changes and the pressure varies along with it. Gravity doesn't.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #53 on: 11/05/2007 13:40:16 »
Quote
Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:

(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?

And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then

(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?

Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached.

Hi Batroost;

I think I've said it before, but this time, I think I can best explain this if the air is "still".
Even the jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still, and the air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles), is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch falling object is 1 square inch. It weighs 1 Lb.
Now look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D.
I call it a "(soft)closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' for their strata level. This is to say that there is nothing special or distinct about the "column in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together, that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels". (I realize they are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning my concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object drops from the "Karman Line"/edge of space.(see Wiki)
All strata (gas) layers extend flatly identically at their own altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls upon and displaces one cubic inch at a time, which "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls".
As each succeeding soft cubic inch bends, its air content is bypassed and fills the void created behind the falling object.
As the object passes, the original atmospheric weight from there up is restored to what it was in its column.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal, but the "ripple action" continues all the way down to sea level.
All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.
Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.

The air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air returned to its continuously/temporarily "borrowed" space.

Now, here's where I always seem to run into all the objections. Could I ask how you would describe what just happened?

Well, Sir; I'm asking what you and others think, assuming you will agree to think in terms of the example I expressed, by remembering that science "created" a Datum area and weight to satisfy a globally comparative need for a baseline. I am simply rising up from that "any one spot" in a vertical column of the appropriate size, and creating its "Datum column", to be used for comparison(s).

What do you think?

Thanks Batroost and other friends.

fleep
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #54 on: 11/05/2007 18:53:58 »
Fleep,

That's a very elegant description. Thank you for putting things so clearly.

As a model (thought-expermient) I was mostly happy with what you were saying. One small 'glitch' would be the statement:

Quote
Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.

Actually, if the object is 'dropped' rather than pushed downwards it starts from rest (not 32 fps) - this may have been wht you meant? - and accelerates downwards. This acceleration is not, initially, at 32 fps/s. At 62 miles above the equator I calculate that the initial acceleration would be reduced by roughly 3936.22/(3963.2+62)2, or by about 3% - call it 31 fps/s. So after 1 second it is travelling at 31 fps, after 2, 62 oand so on. As I said, only a glitch.

Quote
All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.
Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.

I'm happy that your description of columns of air is one way of thinking of what's going on - this is not dis-similar to the approach of 'ensembles' in statistical mechanics. Also, if all you do is asume that this is an 'average day' then of course there is no reason why you shouldn't assume that we have an 'average' 14.7 psi at sea level. If this is all you use average values for then there is no disagreement.

Where I would challenge you is that I think, possibly, you are taking your model of columns a little too far with the bit about the 15.7 PSI. As far as a very simple observation is concerned, if I drop a weight, even a very heavy one, from one hand to another, say a distance of a few feet, then I do not feel the weight of the dropped object until it arrives in my hand. There is no increase in pressure in the column of air that contains the object, below the object. By extension, in your thought experiment I can't believe that the object has any effect on the air below - Note that I may have mis-understood what you were saying here? Perhaps you hadn't intended to mean this?

If I haven't mis-understood then you might be asking 'where has the weight of the object gone then'? To which I think there are a couple of answers. Firstly, the air isn't physically divided into columns so any weight impressed upon the air is very quickly spread out sideways below the object; otherwise you'd feel it when an airplane flew over :). But this can't be the whole answer becuase objects fall down on the Moon as well - with no atmosphere to see an increase in pressure below them. I think the true answer is that the weight is simply how we perceive an acceleration of masses one-toward-another. Let me give you then a twist to your explanation:

Imagine that the experiment is taking place in a 'hard' tube but that the object, though heavy, is full of holes. This means that the air can pass through the object relatively quickly and there is no appreciable wave of air being pushed in front of it i.e. we are not forming a piston under which the air will be compressed. We still have a column of air that is 62 miles high - big tube! - and it still contains both an air column and a falling weight. But I see no reason why the pressure in the tube should be higher than 14.7 psi - provided that the object is free to fall.

We seem to be converging in our views a bit?  ???

Best wishes,

Batroost
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #55 on: 11/05/2007 19:16:10 »
Fleep,

Another thought - because this has been bothering me a bit - why don't you notice a falling weight when you are below it? As you say, the column of air is now effectively heavier.

But, the difference is one of equilibrium. Without a falling weight, the atmosphere in your model can be considered to be in equilibrium. That is, at each height in the atmosphere ("cubic inch") the forces upwards and downwards will always just about balance.

Conversely, the falling weight is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere as it is accelerating downwards. So there is no reason why the forces in the "inches" below the falling weight should reflect its presence.

Regards,

Batroost
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #56 on: 12/05/2007 15:08:36 »
Hi Batroost:

Quote
That's a very elegant description. Thank you for putting things so clearly.
As a model (thought-experiment) I was mostly happy with what you were saying.

Thank you, Sir.

Quote
One small 'glitch' would be the statement:
“Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.”
Actually, if the object is 'dropped' rather than pushed downwards it starts from rest (not 32 fps) - this may have been what you meant? - and accelerates downwards.

I certainly agree.

Quote
I'm happy that your description of columns of air is one way of thinking of what's going on - this is not dissimilar to the approach of 'ensembles' in statistical mechanics. Also, if all you do is assume that this is an 'average day' then of course there is no reason why you shouldn't assume that we have an 'average' 14.7 psi at sea level. If this is all you use average values for then there is no disagreement.

Excellent.  We agree again.

Quote
Where I would challenge you is that I think, possibly, you are taking your model of columns a little too far with the bit about the 15.7 PSI.


O.K. I can see where you have trouble with this, but if we keep thinking in a relative way, (even metaphorically at times), because we are working with an average model, then we must admit that in the context of the entire weight of the entire global atmosphere, there is an “extra” 1 pound up there that falsifies the atmosphere’s true entire weight by a single pound, which is neither air, nor any part of the atmosphere. It must be accounted for as additional weight, regardless of how its volume disturbs the atmosphere itself.

You don’t feel the weight of that pound, or the object you toss from hand to hand, or the atmospheric influence of many thousands of airplanes in flight around the planet. We don’t feel the ponderous weight of millions of tons of water that has been “sucked up” to fall as rain and snow. They too, are temporarily “out of their natural element”, because water’s “work” is on the land. We accept water as “part of the atmosphere”, but in their fluid state, combinations of hydrogen and oxygen are, of course, neither air, nor a gas.
All these extra things up there, do not truly “belong to the atmosphere”, but of course we stick with 14.7 PSI as the average at datum, and include the weight of water, which only makes sense, because there is always plenty of it up there. Every other particle of anything that is not a gas, (and water, since we have chosen to include it), is a foreign substance to the atmosphere. All welcome and unwelcome processes that are functioning in the atmosphere are “doing a job up there”, because the nature of their individual weight/mass/volume, etc., in relation to the “permissions” ascribed by the nature of the atmosphere, will continue to work unnoticed.

And to address your concern about the 15.7 PSI ascribed to my Datum column of 1 cubic inch, I have “elected” to say that since the token 1 pound weight is adding 1 pound to the weight of the entire atmosphere, I will include that one pound in one single model column, as that extra pound is mandatory to the completion of the model’s explanation, and that’s why I keep speaking in terms of a “closed vessel model”.  That’s why the 1 pound must be included in my “model column”.
The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weight is simply being “accommodated”.

Quote
We seem to be converging in our views a bit?
 

Yes, we are finally getting close, I hope. I appreciate the compliment at the beginning too. (Are they ever tough to come by). My theory has never had anything but resistance before, but your many intelligent challenges are what make a well educated man a real teacher. I think you have taught me a great deal.)

Is it time for me to thank you and others for helping me through a very tough part of my whole theory, and may I now try to connect all the other ‘dots”?

fleep
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #57 on: 12/05/2007 15:27:07 »
My theory has never had anything but resistance before, but your many intelligent challenges are what make a well educated man a real teacher. I think you have taught me a great deal.)

Is it time for me to thank you and others for helping me through a very tough part of my whole theory, and may I now try to connect all the other ‘dots”?

fleep


Well. if this topic is truely over, I think both fleep and batroost deserved an award. This is what a polite, informed and educational discussion should be like. Big it up for fleep and batroot. ;D
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #58 on: 12/05/2007 20:29:45 »
Fleep and paul.fr,

Many thanks to you both.

Fleep - if you wish to explain further how you join the dots then I would be interested to see it. If you'd rather put your thoughts in order and save it for a later day then of course I'd understand.

Best wishes,

Batroost
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #59 on: 21/05/2007 20:38:39 »
Fleep and paul.fr,

Fleep - if you wish to explain further how you join the dots then I would be interested to see it. If you'd rather put your thoughts in order and save it for a later day then of course I'd understand.

Batroost

Hi again:

Before I restart by summarizing what I think we agreed on, have you any questions left about the models used to explain:

Falling through Earth atmosphere?
Falling through vacuum onto the moon?
Falling of the shuttle through the vacuum?

They are re-stated below, just to save having to back up & look, but they are "cleaned up" now.

Atmosphere of the Earth – Falling from 62 mi. – (A.k.a. – (Karman Line).

Model 1 - to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
=================

The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D.

I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' for their strata level. There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels". (They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)

Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.

The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.

This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.
============================

Falling of a mass onto the moon.

Model 2 – To track and explain the falling of a mass from a vacuum onto the moon.
=========

(The moon has no atmosphere, except for a slight “skin” directly upon its surface.)

“Build” a 62 mile tower on the moon, simply to match the height of our Karman Line.
The cubic inch block starts falling from the top.
The cube encounters no air resistance, so its increase in velocity is uncontrolled.
There is no “soft closed vessel” of 1 square inch I.D. because there is no atmosphere.
There is no air friction, so nothing slows it down. It falls through a vacuum.
If it fell far enough through open vacuum, it could assumedly achieve fall velocity like the Shuttle in space – about 17,500 mph.
It might only be possible to guess what speed it could achieve in only 62 miles.
The cube hits the moon, bounces, (or imbeds), and stays there, like a meteor would.

This is all to say, that a mass also falls naturally through a vacuum, without “need” of any downward “attraction”, until it strikes any solid “floor”.

===============================

Falling of a shuttle through the vacuum of space.

Model 3 - The sealed Shuttle falls like a cube, (or is propelled) through the vacuum.

It is a closed vessel, and must conform inside to Pascal’s Law (of fluid/air pressure).
It encloses an artificial atmosphere that is much like our own natural atmosphere.
Pressure is exerted on all interior surfaces, objects and people, at right angles.
The ship itself can not “know” if it’s on the Earth, or in the vacuum.
The ship can not “know” that it is falling (or being propelled) through a vacuum.
The ship can not “know” what is up, down, or sideways.
The ship can not “select” any interior area to be its “floor”.
The globally surrounding pressure is constant. Nothing has a place to “belong”.
All loose objects and people are in a surrounding pressure that has no directed force.
Every loose mass floats in the air inside the ship, (OR outside. in a pressurized suit).

This is all to say, that a closed vessel (or a sealed suit) falls naturally through a vacuum without any kind of downward or other directional “attraction”, until it strikes (or is manoeuvred onto) any “floor”. Without manual (rocket engine) intervention, the ship simply falls without order or direction through the vacuum of space like a solid “cube”, unless or until a “solid floor” is encountered to crash-land upon.

If the ship returns to the Earth, the Model 1 basic principles apply, except of course, the ship’s entry is controlled inwards. If it simply dropped like the cube in Model 1, it would act exactly like the cube in Model 1, but over a vertical air column of its own size/area of configuration.
==================================================================

May I go on from here, or are there questions or debate?

Thanks

fleep

 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #60 on: 22/05/2007 21:20:48 »
You say "This is all to say, that a mass also falls naturally through a vacuum, without “need” of any downward “attraction”, until it strikes any solid “floor”." (and similar things.)

How do you define downward?

In the case of model 1 you say "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”."
Again, same question, how does it know which way is downward? Equivalently, how does it "know" where the floor is, in order to aim for it?
If there isn't some force acting on things to make them fall "down" how come they "know" not to go sideways, or up, or stay still?

I say that force is gravity and I don't understand what "downward" means except in terms of in the direction of the force of gravity

« Last Edit: 22/05/2007 21:22:32 by Bored chemist »
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #61 on: 23/05/2007 01:19:49 »
You say "This is all to say, that a mass also falls naturally through a vacuum, without “need” of any downward “attraction”, until it strikes any solid “floor”." (and similar things.)

How do you define downward?

In the case of model 1 you say "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”."
Again, same question, how does it know which way is downward? Equivalently, how does it "know" where the floor is, in order to aim for it?
If there isn't some force acting on things to make them fall "down" how come they "know" not to go sideways, or up, or stay still?

I say that force is gravity and I don't understand what "downward" means except in terms of in the direction of the force of gravity



Yes, I did say that Model 2 was about an object falling from a tower onto the moon, so there was a floor, and that means “downwards”. Of course it could have “fallen” in any direction, since it was up there in the vacuum, but I designed the model, and I get to say which direction it “fell”. Let's just say that I touched it to start it "falling" downwards, towards the surface of the moon. I have to direct it because, if you are up in the shuttle and a wrench floats towards you, you give it a little touch and it goes where you pushed it. There is no “floor”. It won’t fall “downwards” because there isn’t any “downwards” in space. I had to start it downwards.


In Model 1, which is through our atmosphere, it fell downwards because that is what naturally happens in an atmosphere. When the Mars explorer vehicles landed there, they fell onto the planet and bounced along. That’s what happens in atmospheres. Weights seek the floor of an atmosphere. They don’t fall off in any “unknown’ direction unless they’re in the vacuum of space.
That’s what I meant by “downwards”. It’s simply a term that follows the design of what the model is supposed to show.

As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”, that’s what my theory is about. Gravity has no “force” as far as my theory is concerned, and the models are designed to say that. Gravity is simply “weight”. It’s inside us. It attracts nothing, because it can’t. Gravity is benign.

Newton was mostly right in his observations, but I contend that he was wrong about “gravitation”. Give me a chance to try to prove MY theory. Arguing would be a waste of time in the forum, since all of my studies say that gravity does not attract anything. I will not argue whether gravity attracts because all of the evidence I have and will produce is designed to show that gravity is merely an “intensive property” - (see wikipedia).

I’m going forward with my theory.

Thanks, for input, B. C.

fleep

 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #62 on: 23/05/2007 21:21:52 »
"As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”"
Sorry, but that's the oposite of what I said; "I say that force is gravity".

What happens if my helpful robot friend (who doesn't need any air and doesn't take any to the moon with him) stands on the moon and drop a rock?
Does the rock stay still, fall towards the earth or fall towards the moon?
I say it falls to the moon and that's due to gravity.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #63 on: 23/05/2007 23:08:43 »
"As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”"
Sorry, but that's the oposite of what I said; "I say that force is gravity".

What happens if my helpful robot friend (who doesn't need any air and doesn't take any to the moon with him) stands on the moon and drop a rock?
Does the rock stay still, fall towards the earth or fall towards the moon?
I say it falls to the moon and that's due to gravity.

Cheeeez! I meant to say, that you said that "Gravity has force", not "Gravity has no force". I'll have to read more carefully, or watch more closely what I'm saying.
Anyway, I say gravity has no force. Unlike what you seem to believe, I say that gravity is "weight", and that's all that it is. It is not "force", and it does not "attract" other matter. As I said, I'm not arguing this anymore, because that's what my theory will try to sustain and explain.

(What's a robot got to do with this?) Your robot's rock will fall onto the moon, of course, just like my model explained.It will fall due to its weight. Gravity is ONLY weight. It is not a force.

What are you getting at? I said all this in my last messg.

Thanks for input.

fleep
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #64 on: 24/05/2007 13:50:14 »
To any who are following this theory:

None seem convinced that Newton's Theory of Gravitation is incorrect, as my own theory claims. I have prepared the following to best explain my thoughts for staying this course of reason.

Rules of Falling Objects

Rule 1 - Objects in space vacuum or in a natural atmosphere, must fall when “released”.
Rule 2 - Objects in space vacuum, if sealed inside a gaseous atmosphere, must float.
Rule 3 - No objects are “attracted” to fall towards anything, or one another, but simply obey Rule 1 or 2.

Explanations:

A)If the conventional belief that “falling through space” was all that was required for objects to float in the artificial atmosphere inside space ships, then Rule 2, (which we know to be true), would be violating Rule 1, (which we also know to be true).  Therefore, the correct answer to the question, “Why do the astronauts float in the air inside the shuttle”, can not be, “Because the astronauts are falling through space”. They float because the surrounding pressure has no specific direction to “locate a floor” upon which to set them down. (Pascal’s Law is the explanation.)

B)If matter had “attractive force” as Newton theorized in his “Theory of gravitation”, people and objects would not be floating in the air inside the ship, or at least, other floating objects would be massing together in the air of the ship. This does not happen at all, even though with free flotation, there is a perfect condition in which this could happen, but it does not, because gravitational attraction is an incorrect theory. Objects even touch as they slowly pass, but none stay together.
There seems no better test than this flotation to dispel Newton’s Theory of Gravitation ("attraction" between bodies of matter) as simply an understandable misinterpretation of his observation, over 300 years ago. Gravity does not attract. It is not a "force"

After careful consideration of all this, will anyone concur with this viewpoint before I have to try to continue defending it? If so, can anyone please correct any error(s) in the above logic?

Thanks to all for the opportunity to pick your brains.

fleep
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #65 on: 24/05/2007 15:24:02 »
I must confess, I haven't been following this closely.  A couple of questions immediately spring to mind when reading the summary above, which may have already been answered, please humour me to summarise it for others.

If gravity is not the attractive force, what keeps things in orbit? unless newtons other ideas are also wrong, If the moon was not attracted to the earth (ie, there was not a force acting on the moon pulling it towards the earth), it's momentum would mean it would keep going, in a straight line away from earth.  Likewise, the earth would distance itself from the sun, and instead of rotating, our galaxy would just drift apart...

If gravity is not supplying the force which pulls bodies of mass together, what is?

Could you also explain how you have arrived at rule 2?  I dont see why a mass in a sealed gas filled container in would float inside the container in a vaccuum, or do you only mean in space?  What would happen to a mass in a sealed container which was evacuated of gas, but still sealed from the seperate vaccuum of space? (not to suggest that there are many different kinds of vaccuum, but that if a vaccuum-filled sealed container was sent into space, I would expect to see a body of mass inside it act in avery similar way to the same sealed container filled with gas)
« Last Edit: 24/05/2007 15:29:45 by BenV »
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #66 on: 24/05/2007 19:45:34 »
I haven't been following this closely. 
If gravity is not supplying the force which pulls bodies of mass together, what is?

Could you also explain how you have arrived at rule 2?  I dont see why a mass in a sealed gas filled container in would float inside the container in a vaccuum, or do you only mean in space?  What would happen to a mass in a sealed container which was evacuated of gas, but still sealed from the seperate vaccuum of space? (not to suggest that there are many different kinds of vaccuum, but that if a vaccuum-filled sealed container was sent into space, I would expect to see a body of mass inside it act in avery similar way to the same sealed container filled with gas)

Hi BenV:

I hope you will go back some and review how we got here.
To answer your question about "what force is pulling masses together, you must consider this: Science (in general) accepts that gravity is the attractive force, and I'm working at proving logically that it can not be. There are a dozen theories of gravity in Wikipedia, and they are all still just theories. I'm trying to eliminate the major headache, which is "Newton's Law of Gravitation". If I theorize another "force" that's doing the job described, mine will simply be Theory 13. Let me do one jpb at a time please. I'll get to that when I get some acceptances of what I (hopefully) am proving as I go along.
Why cut to another "chase", when I can cut to the "capture?"

About Rule 2 - ("Objects in space vacuum, if sealed inside a gaseous atmosphere, must float.")
The sealed container in the vacuum of space is the Shuttle. The objects inside it are people and things.

Go back up and find my Model 1,2, and 3 explanations. They are graphic and unnecessary to restate here.

You expect that if the shuttle's atmosphere was evacuated, all would still float. No they would not. See Model 2. the reaction would be like that. They would fall to whatever serves as a "floor", depending on which way the ship is going, or falling.

If it still doesn't answer your questions, please come back with them.

Thanks for your input.

fleep


 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #67 on: 24/05/2007 20:33:36 »
The nice thing about a robot is that it doesn't need to take any air with it.
How do you explain Cavendish's experiment which showed that things do atract each other in just the way Newton's theory predicted and in complete oposition to your 3rd "rule"?
I think it's down to Newton being right (to a very good aproximation; can we leave relativity out of this please because it generally gives me a headache).


Also, when you say that "If matter had “attractive force” as Newton theorized in his “Theory of gravitation”, people and objects would not be floating in the air inside the ship, or at least, other floating objects would be massing together in the air of the ship. This does not happen at all, even though with free flotation, there is a perfect condition in which this could happen, but it does not, because gravitational attraction is an incorrect theory. Objects even touch as they slowly pass, but none stay together."
Have you worked out just how slowly they would drift together?
Imagine 2 balls of mass 1 kg set free in space a metre apart. They would accelerate together at about 0.0000000000667 m/s/s
the longest space flights are about a year. If nothing else acted on the 2 objects then after a year they would have picked up a speed of 2mm/sec.
Do you really think anyone would notice?
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #68 on: 25/05/2007 02:06:20 »
How do you explain Cavendish's experiment etc.
I think it's down to Newton being right etc.
can we leave relativity out of this please because it generally gives me a headache).

I still contend that even if there is some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable, it doesn't come from gravity, which is nothing but the equivalence of weight. You want to forget about relativity? Sure. Leave Einstein out, and Cavendish and Newton too. I'm trying to get on with my own theory.

[/quote]
Also, when you say that "If matter had “attractive force” as Newton theorized in his “Theory of gravitation”, people and objects would not be floating in the air inside the ship, or at least, other floating objects would be massing together in the air of the ship. This does not happen at all, even though with free flotation, there is a perfect condition in which this could happen, but it does not, because gravitational attraction is an incorrect theory. Objects even touch as they slowly pass, but none stay together."
Have you worked out just how slowly they would drift together?
Imagine 2 balls of mass 1 kg set free in space a metre apart. They would accelerate together at about 0.0000000000667 m/s/s
the longest space flights are about a year. If nothing else acted on the 2 objects then after a year they would have picked up a speed of 2mm/sec.
Do you really think anyone would notice?

Well. You're saying what I am. The kind of insignificance you're talking about doesn't even deserve any consideration. Compare what you're talking about to claims that the moon's gravity "pulls" our tides. If gravitational attraction is operating at a speed scale where a planet rotating at the speed of the Earth can be "attracted" from 238,000 miles away, as it turns, then where does your speed scale fit in?

Nothing "pulls" the tides in my theory. There's obviously something else "pushing" our tides, and it's not gravity. I'll cover that later.

My theory has to get flowing before I can confuse the issue by bringing in new phases of my total theory while we keep fighting about old arguments like "gravity that attracts". If my theory's logic needs clarifying, I'll try to do that, but I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts".

Thanks

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #69 on: 26/05/2007 12:12:41 »
There really is a perfectly measurable force; its not "some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable"
It's perfectly measurable and, for things as big as the earth its even quite big. It's called gravity. It works fine and it is the right "size" to explain Caendishes results and the tides. Why try to introduce some new theory?
Something that is insignificant for a pair of 1KG balls can be significant when the balls weigh as much as the moon and the earth. You ask "then where does your speed scale fit in?"
 It fits in perfectly well thank you. If I change the experiment to make one of the balls the mass of the earth (6X 10^24 Kg) and then increase the distance to equal the earth's radius (6.4X10^6 Metres)then I get a force thats 9.77 Newtons and that would accelerat the 1 KG ball at about 9.8 m/s/s Exactly what is observed in reality.

It's all very well for you to say "I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts"." but you really need to have an alternative explanation for things like Cavendish's work. You can say that you don't wish to talk about Newton's or Einsteins theories. Fair enough. You can't sensibly ignore experimental results like those produced by Cavendish.
Gravity really does exist; it's why I'm sat on a chair not floating in space and it's perfectly measurable. It's not a strong force so you need very big things or very sensitive measurements but that doesn't stop it being real.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #70 on: 26/05/2007 15:13:09 »
There really is a perfectly measurable force; its not "some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable"
It's perfectly measurable and, for things as big as the earth its even quite big. It's called gravity. It works fine and it is the right "size" to explain Caendishes results and the tides. Why try to introduce some new theory?
Something that is insignificant for a pair of 1KG balls can be significant when the balls weigh as much as the moon and the earth. You ask "then where does your speed scale fit in?"
 It fits in perfectly well thank you. If I change the experiment to make one of the balls the mass of the earth (6X 10^24 Kg) and then increase the distance to equal the earth's radius (6.4X10^6 Metres)then I get a force thats 9.77 Newtons and that would accelerat the 1 KG ball at about 9.8 m/s/s Exactly what is observed in reality.

It's all very well for you to say "I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts"." but you really need to have an alternative explanation for things like Cavendish's work. You can say that you don't wish to talk about Newton's or Einsteins theories. Fair enough. You can't sensibly ignore experimental results like those produced by Cavendish.
Gravity really does exist; it's why I'm sat on a chair not floating in space and it's perfectly measurable. It's not a strong force so you need very big things or very sensitive measurements but that doesn't stop it being real.

Hi BC;

Before I say another word to continue a never-ending difference of opinions, please look ae "Coulomb's Law", in Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you want.

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #71 on: 27/05/2007 19:22:42 »
Hi all.

This has been a good debate and I thank you for it as it has helped explain many things to me, however I would like to say this.

Newton ignored many attempts by others to get him to explain "causality" when it came to gravity and pressed ahead with his ideas despite proof of cause. Newton saw the apple fall and by observation assumed that the inherent positive attraction of the earth's "gravity" caused it to fall toward the earth and yet, we still do not know what gravity is or its cause.

If gravity was a pushing force and not attractive and affected mass, wouldn't the observations be the same?
Two objects would still approach each other but not by attraction, observation of planets and tides would still be the same,  and you would still be able to sit on that chair.


Bee
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #72 on: 27/05/2007 19:52:24 »
Newton ignored many attempts by others to get him to explain "causality" when it came to gravity and pressed ahead with his ideas despite proof of cause. Newton saw the apple fall and by observation assumed that the inherent positive attraction of the earth's "gravity" caused it to fall toward the earth and yet, we still do not know what gravity is or its cause.

If gravity was a pushing force and not attractive and affected mass, wouldn't the observations be the same?
Two objects would still approach each other but not by attraction, observation of planets and tides would still be the same,  and you would still be able to sit on that chair.


Bee

Hi Bee;

Your question is welcome. I introduced Coulomb to the argument to sort of raise the ante of the discussion. Here is what I'm thinking:

Let’s look at Coulomb.

“The formula to Coulomb's Law is of the same form as Newton's 3rd Law: The electrical force of one body exerted on the second body is equal to the force exerted by the second body on the first. “(Wikipedia).

What a strange “coincidence”! If Coulomb’s Law is the electrical counterpart of Newton’s 3rd Law of Mechanics, does “Newton’s Law of Gravitation” not suddenly seem (in reality), a “force” that is really only an early misinterpretation of what Coulomb discovered? Is the force attributed to “gravitational attraction really an external force? If gravity is not a force and does not attract anything, then our tides must be “pushed” along by the moon’s burden “bending” of our atmosphere, as when it is “coming off an eastern coast”, like Europe. The planets in our galaxy are obviously held in controlled orbits. What makes more sense – Things like an electrical network of Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres (as “control switchboards”), and neutrinos radiating in all directions from our sun, or “gravitational attraction”? Electrostatics seem to be a far more plausible reason for observations made between masses, because they are always relevant to the moment and the circumstance, while “gravitational attraction’”, with all the many arguments against it, is far less plausible than Coulomb, even though Coulomb’s law came along a century later.

Thanks.

fleep
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8668
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #73 on: 27/05/2007 20:37:23 »
"Before I say another word to continue a never-ending difference of opinions"
We are not talking about a difference of opinion. We are talking about the fact that gtravity is real, and measurable.
Opinion doesn't enter into it; You need an explanation of Cavendish's result and a reason to not believe in gravity..

I'm familiar enough with Coulombs law that I don't feel I need to look it up.
Why introduce the electrostatic force equation when you can't explain why you don't accept the experimental evidence from Cavendish and many other things.
Just for the record, while they both have an inverse square law (and that's not suprising really) there is a real difference. Like charges repel but all gravitational forces are atractive.

If you think about it, an inverse square law is not that odd. Imagine that something is spreading out from a mass or charge (maybe grtavitons or virtual photons) That "something" gets spread out as you go further from the centre. As you go out the area that this "stuff" is spread over increases with the square of the distance. It makes sense that at twice the distance it is spread across 4 times the area and it's four times weaker.
It's not an odd coincidence; it's perfectly reasonable.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #74 on: 28/05/2007 02:33:40 »
You need an explanation of Cavendish's result and a reason to not believe in gravity..

Why introduce the electrostatic force equation when you can't explain why you don't accept the experimental evidence from Cavendish and many other things?
Just for the record, while they both have an inverse square law there is a real difference. Like charges repel...

Hi BC:

What makes you think that laboratory experiments that are designed to prove a point do not sometimes produce only and exactly the results that they were intended to produce? A mission that is designed to reproduce expected results is frequently tailored along lines that run parallel to the original thinking, and thus produce a reinforcement of a (possible) fallacy. Math can even be tailor-made after the fact to explain observations, but even math can tell lies.

I knew a high school principle that used to entertain us with his mathematics hobby. He “proved” by algebra that 1 = 0, and it followed logically (back then) all the way through the equation. Why does everything we work with today, excepting perhaps the proven functions of physical forces and types of energy that run our industries and homes, still carry the label of “theory”?

I don’t think I actually said that I don’t believe in “gravity”, itself. I remember saying that gravity is the same thing as weight, and that it is benign, and that it is not a force, and that it is only a property of matter. If gravity someday proves to be “something other than an attractive force”, the word “gravity” might become only another word for that something else.

I think I have explained my point of view that from the very obvious performance of falling and floating objects in nature, that there is no reason to believe that gravity must attract anything, but with orbits and galaxies and black holes, etc.,” and other “protective centers of containment” throughout the universe, it is far more logical that they are governed by “forces that separate them”, not attract them to anything else. I believe this to be fundamentally logical. “Containment” equals “unique function”, even often accompanied by “identifiable purpose”. “Random attraction” only equals “elemental anarchy”. If you’re going to begin with logic, then you have to start at the “beginning”.

 Apply your mathematics to the theory of “accretion” and I think you will find that massive round bodies the size of Jupiter and larger, could never have “come together (by attraction) and formed “round balls” of matter, even over billions of years since the big bang. The accretion theory is non-believable to me.  Why would all the planets and huge space bodies we can see that started to be attracted together, turn out round? Does “attractive gravity” have some other rule than “rotation against nothingness” that makes them become round? What could that be? A globally “compressive force” should make far more sense, if you expect to produce roundness. (Leave the "ovality" and the elliptical orbits out of this to simplify it for now.)
As you pointed out, (something that we both knew), “Like charges repel”.  Coulomb’s “similarity to Newton’s 3rd Law” is more relevant than Newton’s Theory of gravitational attraction”, in my opinion.

If gravitational attraction was real, what would make round masses form from a point of central dissipation at the moment of the Big Bang, when all the ‘products” of the bang flew radially off in every direction? If “attraction” began to commence at some later point after the bang, what “force” governed the localization of concentrations of matter to even begin to “think” about “forming into separate balls”? How did “just the right stuff” get in “just the right place” so that everything turned out as beautifully as it all did?

We can argue against the recognized academic monopoly, or we can think for ourselves, even though “free thinking”, even as a concept; has almost become heresy in today’s Orwellian world.

I did not answer the question, and the foregoing is meant to express exactly why I did not. I am not defending against other theories that might demand further study on my part, unless that is necessary to further my own theory. That would take forever to get my own theory across. If that’s not acceptable, I might as well just shut it down in this forum and go elsewhere.

Attack what I theorize, if you must, and I'll try to answer your questions. I'm sorry, but logic always has to happen before math comes into play, so I won't contest anything but the logic that appears to, or has been reported to have been that which led to other theories.

Thanks

Fleep

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #74 on: 28/05/2007 02:33:40 »

 

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