# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Atmospheric pressure and its effect  (Read 57713 times)

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #75 on: 28/05/2007 15:01:51 »
Feel free to find out what Cavendish's experiment sought to find out. Then explain how it could "produce only and exactly the results that they were intended to produce".

"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"
No he didn't. You cannot prove something that isn't true. It's most likely that he did something that was mathematically the equivalent of dividing by zero (which is undefined) but didn't look like it.

When you say "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." It's still not clear to me what you think gravity is. I think it's the force that every body exerts on every other in proportion to the product of their masses and the reciprocal of the square of their distance. You can slander as many experimentalist as you please but this force has been measured many times.

As for "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. "
So what? just because you don't believe (or don't wish to believe) something doesn't mean it's false. It is a valid scientific theory; that means that it is in principle falsifiable. If you want to prove it wrong you just have to find a counterexample
If you think that gravity doesn't colapse things into balls then, in the first place, please let me know why not  (because there are a lot of folk out their with much better maths skills than me who have modeled it and they think it does work) and in the second place please let me know what you think it does predict?

You ask "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?"
The simple answer is that gravity did all that by attracting the bits to one another to overcome the original momentum they had.
You say to attack what you theorise
OK
1 Your theory is unnecessary- it offers no explanation of anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain.
2 Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.
3 Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.

The third of these is enough from a scientific point of view to kill the theory.

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #76 on: 29/05/2007 01:44:01 »
Quote
1 Your theory offers no explanation of anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain.
2 Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.
3 Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.

Re Your point #1:
For one thing, it explains what makes astronauts float in the sealed Shuttle in space. but do not float on Earth.

It says: "Rules of Falling Objects" (clarified here:)

Rule 1 - Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”.(and so they do fall.)
Rule 2 - Objects inside the artificial pressurized atmosphere of ships or suits in space must float. (and so they do float.)

Explanation:

If the conventional belief that “falling through space” was all that was required for objects to float in the artificial atmosphere inside space ships and/or space suits, then Rule 2, (which we know to be true), would be violating Rule 1, (which we also know to be true).  (Both could not 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.)

(Pressure goes where it is directed, but pressure in the Shuttle has no "direction", so it goes "everywhere". It has no directionally assigned "job" to do.)

(Where does Newton fit into this by your interpretation of his Law of gravitation?)This alone is new theory, supported by the evidence that the common claim that "astronauts float because they are falling through space" can not be true.
==============================================================
Re: Your point #2:("Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.)"

See messg 90389 - (Me to you). What did this not explain?
===============================================================
Re: Your point #3: ("Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.")

How can you call any experimental observations "facts", when they are the product of mathematics that were written to explain something that is a theory? Coulomb's (electrical) law's equivalence to Newton's 3rd (physics)Law is something that compares 2 things: ("Electrical repulsion" and "Pull gravity")
I happen to lean towards Coulomb, as the explanation of a "force" that does things out there.

Facts born of facts = facts.
Facts born of theory = Theoretical "evidence".

Please look at Messg # 90024, 90389,(to you), and 90696. Maybe you missed something I've already covered.

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #77 on: 29/05/2007 13:25:22 »
Re. 1
I said it doesn't explain anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain. "Weightlesness" in free fall is perfectly in accord with Newton.
Rule 1 as written "Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”." simply isn't true. Satelites are in open space and they don't fall.

When your theory doesn't agree with reality it is not because reality is wrong.
Re. 2
The presence or absense of an atmosphere makes no difference. They still float when they go outside the ship. As they wait in the airlock as it decompresses they don't notice any change in gravity.
Rule 2 is nonsense; things in free fall float- an atmosphere isn't relevant.

Re.
"How can you call any experimental observations "facts", when they are the product of mathematics that were written to explain something that is a theory?"
I don't need to.
Cavendish observed the twisting of a torsion balance when he moved lots of mercury near to the 2 balls that were suspended on the balance.
See, no theory and no maths!
Just an experimental observation made many years ago and repeated many times since with increasing precision. Here's a site wher they get students to do it.

If your theory does not explain this observation then, again, it is not because reality is at fault.
This is not a fact born of theory (whatever that may mean) it's just fact.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Is it because it wrecks your "theory"?
I have aske many times
Please explain how your theory (that things don't generally atract each other) deals with the experimental observation that they do.
Otherwise give up.

#### that mad man

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #78 on: 29/05/2007 16:12:52 »
Surely, the observation by Cavendish only shows that the balls nearer twist the balance and only observation proves that.

Could it be equally as valid to say that an outside force of gravity was pushing them together and that the mass of the objects is absorbing or masking some of the gravity thus causing a difference in force?

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #79 on: 29/05/2007 18:02:09 »
Hi BC;

You said  - Re: Point 1 – “Rule 1 as written "Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”." simply isn't true. Satellites are in open space and they don't fall.”

You’re not reading what I’m saying.
Rule 1 said that “objects that are “dropped” in space will fall”.  We both know that satellites are engineered into stable orbits. Satellites are not “dropped” into space. You know that.
.

You said - Re. Point 2 – “The presence or absence of an atmosphere makes no difference. They still float when they go outside the ship. As they wait in the airlock as it decompresses they don't notice any change in gravity.
Things in free fall float- an atmosphere isn't relevant.”

My Rule 2 - Objects inside the artificial pressurized atmosphere of ships or suits in space must float. (and so they do float.)

They float around in the airlock too, only because they have an artificial atmosphere in their suits! Things in free fall do not float; they fall. Once outside the ship, the suits will be falling through space, like the ship, while the people are floating in their atmosphere-filled suits, even as their suits fall. The people are tethered to the falling ship to prevent drifting away.

Re: Your point #3: where you said:
“Cavendish observed the twisting of a torsion balance when he moved lots of mercury near to the 2 balls that were suspended on the balance. See, no theory and no maths!
Just an experimental observation made many years ago and repeated many times since with increasing precision. Here's a site where they get students to do it.

This is not a fact born of theory (whatever that may mean) it's just fact.
Why do you keep ignoring it? Is it because it wrecks your "theory"?
I have asked many times-
Please explain how your theory (that things don't generally attract each other) deals with the experimental observation that they do.
Otherwise give up."

To answer the last request (before you propose that I give up), my theory contends that what Cavendish saw was misinterpreted in what he observed as a "gravitational action", while it was another actual cause that created the action that he saw.
This quote is right off the website you gave me: (above)
“The torsional balance was first invented by Coulomb in 1784 and used to measure electrical forces. In 1798, the same method was used by Cavendish to measure the gravitational force.”

Cavendish used Coulomb’s electrical measuring device, which would give the same results. How do you take an electrical measuring device, and use it to measure “gravitational attraction”, a physical theory, and get the same answer, and call your “gravitational attraction”, “proven? I say that Cavendish witnessed an electrical response, like Coulomb did with his device that he invented for measuring electrical forces..

How can it be simply ignored that Tesla and Marconi and the rest used the fact that we live in an “electric universe” to accomplish the things that they did? Electromagnetic attraction and repulsion make sense, even over long distances. What do you think things like the Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres are for? What are light and neutrinos and photons and ions etc., all about? They are real, but what are “gravitons”, and “strings”, and such? They are hypotheticals. Why do Janus and Epimetheus never collide when they trade orbits? Who has ever calculated what “proportion” of like-pole repulsion is dampened by “gravitational attraction”? Why do radios, phones, TV, and computers work across the skies?

Now please answer my (perhaps plausible) observations.

Why would you ever suggest that anyone give up? That is a decision that remains with the author of a theory. If I was insulting you, that would be different. I have made every effort to accommodate your questions, (I think). Please give me a break with your attempts to prevent me from explaining something that could possibly be “an equal plausibility”.

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #80 on: 29/05/2007 19:10:02 »
The spacewalkers' spanners float. They are not in air. The suits float about too (with the spacemen inside them). The suits are not inside suits and they are not in air.
Not all satelites are man made. Who engineered the launch of the moon?

The torsion balance was indeed invented to measure the forces between charged particles; so what? They get uesd to measure surface tension too. If cavendish had been a few years aerlier he might well have invented it (he was pretty bright) would than mean that all subsequent measurements of the forces on charges would mysteriously be labeled as gravity. Of course not. "Cavendish used Coulomb’s electrical measuring device" is a red herring two balls on a stick on a thread isn't electrical.
Since modern torsional balances use a metal (commonly tungsten) thread all the charge leaks away so the one thing we can be sure is that there isn't an electrical effect. Even if Cavendish used an "insulator" the time over which his experiments ran was so big the charge would have been dissipated.
The reason I can ignore Tesla and Marconi is the same reason that I can ignore Bequerel. His field of physics (radioactivity) was something else. We know this isn't an electrical effect so the work done on electricity has nothing to do with it.
OK, I know that the electromagnetic force is something like 10^34 times bigger than gravity but ,because there are atractive and repulsive aspects to it, they tend to cancel out. Gravity is always atractive so it always adds up. On the grand scale it's big.

As for "Why do Janus and Epimetheus never collide when they trade orbits?" Just wait.
"What do you think things like the Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres are for?"
I don't think they are "for" anything; to ascribe a purpose to them would require that they were deliberately put there. Are you trying to prove the existence of God?
"What are light and neutrinos and photons and ions etc., all about? " I don't know but 2 out of 3 are to do with electromagnetic interactions and the other is to do with one of the nuclear forces. Since we are talking about gravity then, unless you have a grand unification theory up your sleeve, they have nothing to do with this topic.
Not sure what you mean by "Who has ever calculated what “proportion” of like-pole repulsion is dampened by “gravitational attraction”?" but I think the answer might be Millikan (of oil drop fame).
As for
"Why do radios, phones, TV, and computers work across the skies?" Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to do with gravity.

Please stop trying to force electrostatics into this. We know, because of the materials he used,  that Cavendish didn't have any electrical effects to worry about.
Stop saying that he was "mistaken", at least until you have some sort of evidence that he was.
In short, since you have yet to show any problem with Newtonian gravity, any new (non relativistic) theory is redundant. Since the new theory is redundant it's a waste of time.
What I'm asking you to give up on is trying to find a new solution where there isn't a problem.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2007 19:13:12 by Bored chemist »

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #81 on: 30/05/2007 01:30:28 »
Hey BC;

First you said:
"The spacewalkers' spanners float. They are not in air. The suits float about too (with the spacemen inside them). The suits are not inside suits and they are not in air.
Not all satellites are man made. Who engineered the launch of the moon?"

O.K. Let's start from there and come back to the rest later.
Let’s take this all in little bites. Let’s cover only the things happening in the vacuum first, and try to resolve what’s happening in space. Then we’ll carry it back to Earth and see what happened.

No, the spacewalkers' spanners are not "floating". Spacewalks are done with the engines off, so the ship is in free-fall, (if it has not been engineered into a pre-planned orbit). The spacewalkers then too, are also in free-fall. The spanners and the atmosphere-filled suits are not “floating” outside the ship. They are free-falling at the same rate as the walker beside them. A person in a walker’s suit, in this case, is just like being inside the atmosphere of the ship, because the atmospheric pressure in the suit is the same as in the ship. The result is that the body of the person in the suit is “acting” the same as if it was inside the ship. It’s floating in a pressurized atmosphere.
Once in open space, the walkers’ spanners free-fall beside the user at exactly the same rate as the ship, the suit itself, and the person, (who is floating in the atmosphere inside the suit). Remember that in open space, a feather falls at the same rate as a bowling ball, because there is no friction. Everything outside the ship falls at the same rate.
Outside the ship, the astronaut is the only thing that is floating – inside his (globally-exerted)atmosphere-filled (falling) suit. Inside the ship, every loose thing or person is floating in a “blind (globally-exerted) atmosphere” that can not possibly ‘know” where "up or down" is. (Pascal’s Law). (Direction does not matter when you're inside a fitted space-suit).

To differentiate: That’s what is happening in space. Now let’s look at the ship coming home, into our atmosphere.
We know that things fall to the ground from anywhere in our atmosphere. So, the ship comes into our atmosphere, and any floating stuff that is not fastened, starts heading for the “floor” of the ship. Where do they fall to? Where else? They fall to the side of the ship that is lowest in the atmosphere, as the ship comes in. They fall ”downwards”, and it’s happening too fast to be attributed to “gravitational attraction”, which, even admitted by my critics, never "happens" in an instant.

What just happened here? The “rules” of what happens in the vacuum vs. what happens in an atmosphere, completely changed. Stuff doesn’t float in the ship anymore. What made the difference in object behaviour? The change was due to the ship’s entry into the atmosphere, of course. There can be no other reason.

Ergo – Vacuum = one set of rules. Atmosphere = a different set of rules. Transition between the two = conversion to the effects of the other “medium”, depending on whether you’re going out, or coming back.

This is as simple to follow as if you are dry, on a diving board; then you’re getting wet, as you enter the water; then you’re soaking wet, when you go under water. (Or, run the film backwards if you like). These too, are a definition of conditions that change, from one medium to another. You go from your real weight, to your “transition weight”, to your “buoyant weight”.

Is anyone who is following this discussion brave enough to admit that they agree with this whole argument? Are objects floating in the shuttle because the ship’s interior atmospheric pressure doesn’t “know” where the floor is, (under Pascal’s law)? If you can not make yourself decide, then you know that this is logical, simply because “floating in the air because the ship is falling through space” is not even a plausible explanation.

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #82 on: 30/05/2007 19:32:56 »
OK, lets get my trusty robot friend and put him on a leaky ship and send him to the moon. I will follow on behind in my ship which, of course, is full of air.

We both blast off getting pushed back into our seats- nice simple f=ma stuff. Then the engines cut out and we drift in freefall; both of us can then float about in our ships and so can any spanners we happen to have with us. For want of anything better to do we might put on space suits- that won't make any difference either.
So far we experience identical things even though I'm in air and he's not (except when he put on his suit and it made no difference- lets assume he takes it off again because it's awkward.).
In due course we get near the moon and start to fall towards it. We both accelerate towards the moon until we crash into it.
Still, while the robot has no air, but I do, we experience exactly the same thing.
Of course, if we want to survive then rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship. We get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them, (best make sure the belt's fastened)
Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing.
The vacuum/ air doesn't make a difference.
OK, here's version 2. Rather than firing reto rockets I rely on a really long rubber band that I tied to the earth before I set out ( Just in case you are wondering, it's tied to a ring round the equator so the spinning earth doesn't tangle it up)
Things work out pretty much the same as version 1. The robot and I experience the same thing even though only one of us has air.

OK here's version 3
Rather than the really long rubber band I put a big block of rubber on the moon and fall into that.
Much the same effect, both for me and for my airless counterpart
OK What about version 4 the rubber is replaced by cotton candy (candy floss if it's my side of the ocean)
The effect is stickier but again, my robot friend and I experience exactly the same thing notwithstanding his lack of air.

Finally I replace the cotton candy with air.
Still the same for me and the same for him.

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship of the ship as it lands on the moon is that the retro rockets or the rubber band or the candy or the moon's (newly aquired for this thought experiment) atmosphere force it into me. Same goes for Robby.

OK, if I can put that much air on the moon I might as well have used the stuff on earth (less shipping costs)
That's the same as turning the ship round and coming home. That;'s why I hit the floor of the ship; not because the ship is suddenly surrounded by air, but because it is slowed down by it but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor.

When you write "They fall ”downwards”, and it’s happening too fast to be attributed to “gravitational attraction”, which, even admitted by my critics, never "happens" in an instant." what are you talking about? The best estimate is that gravity travels at the speed of light so how good would your reflexes need to be to spot that it wasn't instant? Even then the transition from zero gravity to normal gravity isn't anything like instant. For what it's worth there's even a technical term for the rate of change of apparent gravity; it's called Jounce and it's important if you are building fairground rides.

All I want is a nice simple reason that makes your theory useful; something like this.
Under (x,y, and z circumstances) whereas Newtonian gravity (aided by Einstein if needs be) says that proposition A will happen, in fact we know that proposition B will happen.
Since my theory predicts B  which is observed whereas conventional gravity predicts that A will occur my theory is better than the conventional view.

BTW, is anyone else following this thread at all?
« Last Edit: 30/05/2007 19:53:41 by Bored chemist »

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #83 on: 31/05/2007 18:09:37 »
Re: Bored chemist
Message ID: 92960

Hi BC; You said (in black) -

My robot friend is in a leaky ship.
I follow in my ship which is full of (hot) air. (Sorry. I couldn’t resist.)

We both blast off getting pushed back into our seats. (Yep) Then the engines cut out and we drift in freefall. (Yep) Both (nope) of us can then float about in our ships with our spanners.

(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.)

We put on space suits- that make no difference. (Yep) We take them off.(OK)
So far we experience identical things (nope – see above) even though I'm in air and he's not. WE start to fall towards the moon . We both accelerate towards the moon until we crash into it.

(nope- no acceleration. You’re already falling at about 17,500 mph since you are in the vacuum).

Still, while the robot has no air, but I do, we experience exactly the same thing. (nope- You are floating in the air. He is on the floor of his ship)

But rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship.

(nope – He’s already on the floor, and you just keep floating, because your blind atmosphere (and the ship) doesn’t know anything is different, even with the rockets fired)

We get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them,

(nope- The ship has encountered no atmosphere to slow it down. You will be a fly on your windscreen when you hit the surface. Nothing will happen to you before that.  The robot’s already at the windscreen, or leading edge of the crash, unless you’re coming in on an angle, but he is on a surface already.)

Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing. (nope- see above)
The vacuum/ air doesn't make a difference. (yes, it sure does)

Versions 2 and 3 would be redundant here.

Finally I replace the cotton candy with air on the moon.

(You replace the vacuum above the surface with an atmosphere, is what you have to say to go on, but the effect is governed of course by its depth and density,  2 factors not given, so I can’t go on, but you know that the effects would be (relatively speaking), like coming back to Earth.)

Still the same for me and the same for him. (nope)

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship as it lands (crashes into) on the moon is that the retro rockets the moon's (newly acquired) atmosphere force it into me. (dependent on how much air/atmosphere you “put” there.) Same goes for Robby.

That;'s  why I hit the floor of the ship; because it is slowed down by air, but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor. (Of course, but again, the atmosphere that you "put there" has to be a deep atmosphere to have a decelerating effect from space speed.

(Gravity is weight within matter in my theory. Matter only falls, whether in an atmosphere, (pushing air down and aside as it goes,) or in a vacuum, where it free-falls, and there is nothing to push or move aside.)

All I want is a nice simple reason that makes your theory useful; like this.
Under (x,y, and z circumstances) whereas Newtonian gravity (aided by Einstein if needs be) says that proposition A will happen, in fact we know that proposition B will happen.
Since my theory predicts B  which is observed whereas conventional gravity predicts that A will occur my theory is better than the conventional view.

How’s this:

Fact 1 – A “dropped”, (not propelled), weight, free-falls in any one direction in vacuum.
(Meaning nothing “floats” in space). – Matches conventional theory.

Fact 2 - Weight floats in pressurized atmospheres of sealed ships in space vacuum.
(Meaning weight is not “recognized” inside a ship’s artificial atmospheres in space.)
(Evidence = Pascal’s Law.)
- Conventional theory says that weight floats because the whole ship is “falling”)

Fact 3 - People float in pressurized atmospheres of sealed suits in space vacuum.
(Meaning weight is not “recognized” inside sealed atmosphere suits in space.)
(Evidence = Pascal’s Law.)
- Conventional theory says that weight floats because the whole suit is “falling”.

Fact 4 - Weight falls vertically when “dropped” inside natural atmospheres.
(Meaning weight is only “recognized” in natural atmospheres.)
Evidence – On re-entry, atmospheric pressure causes deceleration effects by friction, then weight causes acceleration effects as weight falls. The weight is “pushing air” down (and then aside), as it falls.
Theory - When the moon passes over the waters of our oceans, it also pushes down, bending our atmosphere in its track, and pushing the tides ahead beneath it. (It is theorized here to be an Earth-moon like-pole electrical repulsion, (Coulomb’s Law) that is the cause of tidal actions. Coulomb’s Law is the electrical “equivalent” of Newton’s 3rd Law (of “equal and opposite” reaction), and the Coulomb math matches the Newtonian form. (See Wikipedia)

Conventional (Newtonian) theory says that the moon’s “gravitational attraction”, “pulls” our tides.

The writer’s theory here disputes that contention, and insists that “gravity” is simply a property of matter that provides the facility whereby matter can be “allowed” to “exhibit” the total of the atomic weights of any elemental composition. This can only happen if the matter is not in the vacuum of space.
Ergo – A “force” is an influence. If gravitational forces existed in the vacuum of space, objects would not be “weightless” in rocket ships. If gravity can cross 238,000 miles through space (as a force), and “pull our tides”, then what prevents gravity from attracting masses to any “floor” inside rocket ships? If external pressure, another physical force; (see Pascal’s law),  can completely negate the “influence” of Newton’s Law of Gravitation in a sealed artificial atmosphere that is surrounded by vacuum, then  which of the two would you suppose is a real “force” that controls matter in a practical and constant way, and which must be an imaginary “force”? How many theories of gravity are out there? Are we wasting our time?
A physical and an electrical force can work side by side, but the physical forces are unique in their necessity to exhibit their (externally-exerted) abilities alone. Electricity is a universal phenomenon. Mechanical forces perform “local” functions. This theory attempts to prove that gravity is not a “force”. It is simply an (internal) property of matter, that we call “weight”. It radiates little but argument.

Thanks.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #84 on: 31/05/2007 19:19:55 »
"(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.) "
You are simply wrong about this; things float about weightlessly in the cargo bay of the shuttle; this is the same as my robot friend's leaky ship.

"(nope- no acceleration. You’re already falling at about 17,500 mph since you are in the vacuum)." wrong again; your hypothesis is at odds with the experience of the astronauts and unmanned landers.

"But rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship.

(nope – He’s already on the floor, and you just keep floating, because your blind atmosphere (and the ship) doesn’t know anything is different, even with the rockets fired)"
Err? didn't you realise that the retro rockets are just like the brakes in a car; when you stop suddenly you get flung out of your seat.
Now, if you want to tell me that I have never personally been to the moon so my arguments are based on reported knowledge so they are invalid, that's fine. Don't try to tell me that cars don't need seat belts.

Sorry to tell you but since your theory doesn't agree with reality it's wrong.
Theres's nothing more to say except thanks, I have enjoyed the discussion.
Oh, and for the sake of completeness,
"Surely, the observation by Cavendish only shows that the balls nearer twist the balance and only observation proves that.

Could it be equally as valid to say that an outside force of gravity was pushing them together and that the mass of the objects is absorbing or masking some of the gravity thus causing a difference in force?
"
True, the observation also doesn't rule out the notion that the big balls scared away the invisible angels who were pushing the little balls. On the other hand, Occam's razor means it's not the first thing I should worry about.

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #85 on: 01/06/2007 02:53:43 »
Hi BC. (You’re in black, me red)

Hold on. What are you running from?  I made a mistake when I screwed up on the retrorocket thing. I admit it. Of course the ship slowed down, and I knew that. Your examples were unnecessarily and overly complex. I’m only human. I blew that one. OK?

In another place, I said: "(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.) "

You replied: “You are simply wrong. Things float weightlessly in the cargo bay of the shuttle, the same as my robot friend's leaky ship.”

May I please ask your internet reference for the site where it says that things float about in the cargo bay, (whether it’s pressurized or not)? I often give you my data sources. I find it extremely difficult to believe that everything in any shuttle’s cargo bay is not lashed down. That could be dangerous. If I can see that and confirm that I’m absolutely wrong about that, I may have a problem and have to re-think really hard. If you don’t have a site in mind, I can ask NASA, but it might take a little time.

Rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time we get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them.
(Yes, assuming you’re both flying in front first.)

Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing. The vacuum/air doesn't make a difference.
(That’s right, because you’re both operating with controlled landing systems, and you’re both strapped in. Also, the controlled landing is engineered for either an atmosphere or for no atmosphere, whichever is known to be at the planned landing site. Both ships will come in the same way.)

Finally I fill the moon with air. Still the same for me and the same for him.

(O.K. Both are controlled landings.)

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship as it lands on the moon is that the retro rockets or the moon's (newly aquired) atmosphere force it into me. Same goes for Robby.

(That’s right. But you two only hit your windscreens if you’re both unbelted, and if you land at too high a rate of speed, of course, but you won’t, because the ship’s landing speed is system-controlled to land at the speed required for the specific (moon) landing circumstance – i.e. – into the atmosphere that you have “put there”, or no atmosphere at all. If you hadn’t “put any air there, the ship would still be controlled to land, except through the vacuum, right down to the safe landing.)

OK, if I can put that much air on the moon, that's the same as turning the ship round and coming home. That's why I hit the floor of the ship; not because the ship is suddenly surrounded by air, but because it is slowed down by it, but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor.

(That’s right. If you’re unbelted.)

(When there was no atmosphere “put there”, the retrorockets fired all the way down to keep the ships from crashing down hard because the ships were free-falling. The ships had been "positioned" to land in a particular spot. When you added the atmosphere, the ships acted like they would on the Earth. You would be in your seats, and yes, if you were landing in the (suddenly acquired) atmosphere, you would be fine too, as stated above.

Why did you not comment on the closing paragraph of my last blurb? Particularly this:

If gravity can cross 238,000 miles through space (as a force), and “pull our tides”, then what prevents gravity from attracting masses to any “floor” inside rocket ships, even when close to the moon?

Why doesn’t this deserve an answer?

Thanks

fleep

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #86 on: 02/06/2007 20:12:02 »
An open commentary relating to my disputed theory:

The moon’s escape velocity is 2.38 km/sec., in any direction. Escape velocity from Earth is 11.2 km per second. Obviously, both are holding down with a pervasive force until rockets have achieved these rates of velocity to escape from the two bodies.
In the case of the Earth, there is a heavy atmospheric “load” which must be penetrated before a departing ship enters the vacuum. When a ship is leaving the moon, there is only a thin ground-level atmosphere, and yet, there still is a takeoff “force” which must be overcome. The moon has a thin ground-level atmosphere, and then a ship rises directly into vacuum.

If something fell off a landing module as the ship was high up, while leaving the moon, it would drop at a tremendously high rate of speed, whereas if something falls off the returning shuttle, it first slows when it hits our atmosphere, then proceeds to fall at a “standard” rate of 32 fps/sec., etc. If “gravitational attraction” was at work in both cases, (and if the Earth had no atmosphere), then our own original escape velocity would have been substantially less than 11.2 km/sec., and the return velocity of an object to a mass the size of our planet, vs. that of the moon, would have been extravagantly more swift than an object falling back onto the moon, because of the greater (alleged) “attraction” by our greater mass. (Our standard “rules of falling objects” would not exist.)

Does this not begin to seem like a problem for the mathematical equations that have been “invented” to “explain” gravitational attraction over short and even long distances? The calculations based on mass size variations, orbital considerations, and all the rest do not (necessarily) consider the factor of atmospheres. As we know from our own, atmospheres too, are parts of the mass of any planet, and atmospheres can be substantially different from each other, or not exist at all. But where they exist, they all have weight.

Science might excuse itself by saying that “those calculations are only meant to be approximate”, but how can we even rely on a policy that knows but a pittance of what is really “out there”? Some atmospheres might be 1000 times heavier than our own. The atmosphere on Venus is 1323 PSI, versus our own 14.7 PSI. What things do we not know, and yet we base all our calculations on mass sizes, even if we do not know if a body has an atmosphere? Do some calculations include a prodigiously heavy atmosphere on a very distant body out there, as part of an assumption that it is solid matter? Could some other body have a thin, yet enormously huge and heavy atmosphere whose weight has not been included in the computation of its mass?

Electricity “pierces” atmospheres. Computation of “mass size” would seem to be more logical, using Coulomb’s Law.

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

The following quotation is directly from “Wikipedia”: (Bolding is my own.)

Coulomb's Law, developed in the 1780s by French physicist Charles Augustin de Coulomb, may be stated as follows:

The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point charges is directly proportional to the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges.

This is analogous to Newton's third law of motion in mechanics. The formula to Coulomb's Law is of the same form as Newton's Gravitational 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.”================================================================

The “attractive” implication that I see here, is that the “force” attributed to “gravitation”, might itself be, or be a part of what is happening in reality through an electrical facility, such as like-pole repulsion. So, is “gravitation” itself nothing but an unnecessary theory that is “provable” in no other way than by “tailor-made mathematics?”  (There are at least a dozen different theories of gravitation in Wikipedia.)

We know that energy, (an extensive property) is exhibited around bodies in space, and we know that “exertions” between bodies must be real, or Janus and Epimetheus, two moons of Saturn, would certainly collide, rather than trading orbits every 4 years. Is this because of Coulomb’s Law?

We know that our tides are controlled by our moon, but that phenomenon is attributed to a “gravitational attraction”, which shows a number of inconsistencies in how it is alleged to perform. Could the tidal phenomena be obeying Coulomb’s Law; a law of electrical forces, (which equals Newton’s 3rd Law of mechanics), instead of being subject to one of the inconsistent theories of “gravitation”? Coulomb’s Law, like Newton’s 3rd Law, and Pascal’s Law, is real, and provable, and uncontested. They are “LAWS”, unlike Newton’s Theory of Gravitation.

Pressure is an assignable force, while “gravitation” seems to be a theoretical loose cannon that simply blows holes in what seem to be more sensible options. Not only does all the math for calculating the mass of “distant bodies” seem redundant, gravity itself seems more probable to be an “interior bulk property” that only imparts weight to atomic matter. Gravity would be, “weight”.

If the moon’s gravity “pulls” our tides from 238,000 miles away, why did it not ‘pull” things and people against the cabin wall(s) of Apollo 13 as it passed by, only 155 miles from and behind the moon, where it was blocked from the “pull” of the Earth’s  gravity? It didn't even have to "pull" through an atmosphere.

Anyone care to comment?

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #87 on: 02/06/2007 22:11:44 »
"If gravity can cross 238,000 miles through space (as a force), and “pull our tides”, then what prevents gravity from attracting masses to any “floor” inside rocket ships, even when close to the moon?

Why doesn’t this deserve an answer?
"
I don't recall anyone saying it doesn't. It pulls the floor down and it pulls you down too so you don't fall to the floor because it's falling away.
Any talk of a calculated escape velocity tacitly axccepts Newtonian gravity; that's what the escape velocity is calculated from
You are also mistaken in thinking that you need to reach escape velocity to leave the earth and get to the moon. In principle you could do it by slowly climbing a long ladder.
Coulomb's law only applies to charged bodies. The earth and moon are not significantly charged.

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #88 on: 03/06/2007 18:42:25 »
Hey BC;
"If gravity can cross 238,000 miles through space (as a force), and “pull our tides”, then what prevents gravity from attracting masses to any “floor” inside rocket ships, even when close to the moon?

Why doesn’t this deserve an answer?
"
I don't recall anyone saying it doesn't. It pulls the floor down and it pulls you down too so you don't fall to the floor because it's falling away.
Any talk of a calculated escape velocity tacitly axccepts Newtonian gravity; that's what the escape velocity is calculated from.
You are also mistaken in thinking that you need to reach escape velocity to leave the earth and get to the moon. In principle you could do it by slowly climbing a long ladder.
Coulomb's law only applies to charged bodies. The earth and moon are not significantly charged.

Well. The first answer doesn't match my thoery, as usual. (Blind, undirected atmospheric pressure in the ship can not "know" where the floor is, so you float in the air.) My theory makes more sense, I believe.

Second: If escape velocity can be "calculated by Newtonian Gravity", then it can also be calculated by using Coulomb.

The third (about the ladder) is nonsense.

The fourth ignores that fact that the moon and the Earth are made of atoms that contain a quantity of charge in every single proton and electron, and if I search the net, I'll find someone who can calculate at least those approximate charges, (using Coulomb's Law formula), which I suspect will be quite significant.

Thanks anyway.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #89 on: 03/06/2007 20:22:09 »
Once again; if reality doesn't match your theory it isn't reality that's wrong.

The escape velocity can indeed be calculated by coulomb's law. For an uncharged body it is zero.

What's nonsense about a ladder? They have been used for a long time.

The earth is indeed made of huge numbers of charged thigs. The + charges and the - charges cancel each other out. There is therefore no overall charge for Coulomb's law to apply to. I have already calculated the Coulomb's law forces between the earth and the moon. As expected for 2 uncharged bodies, the force is zero.
It is indeed significant that this force is zero; it means that your theory is dead in the water.

Did you not read the bit where I pointed this out earlier? When you first introduced Coulomb's law I pointed out that gravity always adds up but electrical forces tend to cancell out.
Why can't you understand that it's the overall charge that matters?

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #90 on: 03/06/2007 22:17:54 »

May I see your calculations please, BC? They will help me to make calculations of my own.

Thanks.

Fleep

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #91 on: 04/06/2007 13:24:01 »

The earth is indeed made of huge numbers of charged thigs. The + charges and the - charges cancel each other out. There is therefore no overall charge for Coulomb's law to apply to. I have already calculated the Coulomb's law forces between the earth and the moon. As expected for 2 uncharged bodies, the force is zero.
It is indeed significant that this force is zero; it means that your theory is dead in the water. (No it does not.)
When you first introduced Coulomb's law I pointed out that gravity always adds up but electrical forces tend to cancel out.

Sure. I don't have all the answers, but I don't ignore all the questions that still remain. Theories remain simply "maybes" if closed minds are happy building on the stuff of ancient speculation. Why is it so important to check out everything? How about the possibilities that a different truth could bring to the known directions of global warming? Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Electric_currents_in_space

This site might help you appreciate a little more that Coulomb has more to say than just his "Law", (which is not just theory).

You can't just close your eyes all the time and tell me that I'm wrong about my every observation. We're all in the same boat, and private "mutiny" has never been the way to find a "promised land".

Please excuse my zealous words. Like so many others in this world, I have grandchildren who need a place to live when I am gone.

Thanks

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #92 on: 04/06/2007 20:04:31 »
Coulomb's law, like gravity has the form f =K Q1 Q2 /R^2
Since Q1 and Q2 are both zero (neither the earth nor the moon is charged) the product is zero and neither dividing by the square of the distance notr multiplication by the constant makes a difference, the force is still zero.

OK, next question is how am I so sure they aren't charged?

Well, the space round them, while it's a better vacuum than most that get made here on earth, does contain a small amount of gas. The radiation from the sun ionisess this gas - the dominant products will be electrons and protons. If the moon or earth were negatively charged it would atract the protons until that charge was cancelled out. Similarly, if it were positively charged it would atract the electrons. By now any charge would have been neutralised.
N.B the words Coulomb and Coulomb's do not appear on the page you cited, has it been edited since you postsed?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2007 20:07:30 by Bored chemist »

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #93 on: 04/06/2007 21:17:53 »
"N.B the words Coulomb and Coulomb's do not appear on the page you cited, has it been edited since you postsed?"

No. It's about the magnetosphere, and particularly, I wanted you to see the part about "Electric currents in space". I opened the site from the shortcut on my message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Electric_currents_in_space

Thanks for the info BTW.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #94 on: 05/06/2007 19:36:30 »
The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea; if you have currents then the medium is conductive. If it's conductive then any charge on the earth and moon will leak away.

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #95 on: 06/06/2007 14:30:54 »
BC said – “The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea; if you have currents then the medium is conductive. If it's conductive then any charge on the earth and moon will leak away. The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea.”

I say: “No. The fact that there are currents in space supports MY idea. Your comment about the Earth and moon charges ”leaking away” bears no resemblance to what the experts have to say about electric currents in space.

Here are some abbreviated excerpts from Wikipedia and NASA sites. Read them yourself if you want the whole complex story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

In space, magnetic fields owe their existence solely to electric currents, with no role for ferromagnetism.

Magnetic fields from currents that circulate in the magnetospheric plasma extend the Earth's magnetism much further in space than would be predicted from the Earth's internal field alone. Such currents also determine the field's structure far from Earth.

In everyday applications, electric currents always require a "voltage" to drive them, a sort of electric pressure difference (a pressure known as "electric potential"), similar to the pressure difference that drives water along a pipe.

Not so in the magnetosphere (and in many plasmas) where currents (with one important exception) need no voltage to drive them. Any electric current is the transport of electric charge, but in many cases, such transport is already implied by the structure of the field and the plasma. Viewed from above the northern magnetic pole, ions circulate clockwise, electrons counterclockwise, producing a net circulating clockwise current, known (from its shape) as the ring current. No voltage is needed--the current arises naturally from the motion of the ions and electrons in the magnetic field.

Any such current will modify the magnetic field. The ring current strengthens the field on its outside, helping expand the size of the magnetosphere. At the same time, it weakens the magnetic field in its interior. In a magnetic storm, plasma is added to the ring current, making it temporarily stronger, and the field at Earth is observed to weaken by up to 1-2%.

The deformation of the magnetic field, and the flow of electric currents in it are intimately linked, making it often hard to label one as cause and the other as effect. Frequently (as in the magnetopause and the magnetotail) it is intuitively more useful to regard the distribution and flow of plasma as the primary effect, producing the observed magnetic structure, with the associated electric currents just one feature of those structures, more of a consistency requirement of the magnetic structure.

As noted, one exception (at least) exists, a case where voltages do drive currents. That happens with Birkeland currents, which flow from distant space into the near-polar ionosphere, continue at least some distance in the ionosphere, and then return to space. (Part of the current then detours and leaves Earth again along field lines on the morning side, flows across midnight as part of the ring current, then comes back to the ionosphere along field lines on the evening side and rejoins the pattern.) The full circuit of those currents, under various conditions, is still under debate.

Because the ionosphere is an ohmic conductor of sorts, such flow will heat it up. It will also give rise to secondary Hall currents, and accelerate magnetospheric particles--electrons in the arcs of the polar aurora, and singly-ionized oxygen ions (O+) which contribute to the ring current.
=======================================================
NASA says: The interaction between the solar wind and the plasma of the magnetosphere acts like an electric generator, creating electric fields deep inside the magnetosphere. These fields in turn give rise to a general circulation of the plasma within the magnetosphere and accelerate some electrons and ions to higher energies.
During periods of gusty solar wind, powerful magnetic storms in space near the Earth cause vivid auroras, radio and television static, power blackouts, navigation problems for ships and airplanes with magnetic compasses, and damage to satellites and spacecraft. Events on the Sun and in the magnetosphere can also trigger changes in the electrical and chemical properties of the atmosphere, the ozone layer, and high-altitude temperatures and wind patterns.
=================================================
Now I ask you: If science is still debating the functions of the magnetosphere, (and even the Van Allen Belts), why would anyone absolutely stick to the old guns and be happy with a theory that’s over 320 years old, and knew nothing of solar wind, the magnetosphere, Birkeland currents, or anything else that makes more sense than “the THEORY of gravitational attraction”, for which a bunch of math was created? The magnetosphere is a functionally independent electric pressure facility that affects the Earth, and even its tides. You can “watch it at work” in the northern skies” at night. It’s real. We know many things about it. It’s time we took it seriously.

Unless somebody else in this forum wants to take up the ball and get serious about this important possibility, I guess I’ll be looking elsewhere. Any last takers?

If not, thank you all for viewing and contributing to these exchanges. I learned a lot from a couple of you. Special thanks to Batroost and to the site staff.

I have other theories in mind, and I might be back somtime again.

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #96 on: 06/06/2007 19:50:13 »
"In space, magnetic fields owe their existence solely to electric currents, with no role for ferromagnetism."
So what? the earth's magnetic field isn't due to ferromagnetism either; it too is due to circulating electric currents.
I think that if you want to get anyone to continue this discussion you will need to find some concrete evidence that the theory that has, as you say, stood 320 years of testing, is wrong in some way.

#### Batroost

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 276
• There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #97 on: 06/06/2007 21:58:43 »
Hi again fleep,

Measurements have shown that there is a large variation in magnetic fields possessed by bodies within the solar system e.g, Earth's is pretty strong compared to Venus' etc...

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that magnetic fields of two planets of similar mass (and both with significant atmospeheres) should be so very different yet they have similar gravities? Or put another way, doesn't this make a link between magnetic/electric fields and gravity seem a bit unlikely?

- I've picked on Venus/Earth as they are similar in size, but there are very many other bodies with measured magnetic fields; with no foolproof correlation with size.

Cheers,

Batroost

#### fleep

• Guest
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #98 on: 07/06/2007 18:02:14 »
Hi to Batroost and BC:

My model of Earth’s atmosphere (in message 86419), was finally well received by Batroost, who called it “elegant”, (in message 86490). I had to believe that I had (at least one known) acceptance of the model and what it conveyed. Here is the model again:
===============================================================
Purpose of this model – Defining objects’ fall behaviour through our atmosphere.

“It was Science that "created" a Datum area and weight (14.7 Lbs. per square inch), to satisfy a globally comparative need for a baseline. I am simply rising up from that "any one square inch" in a vertical column of the appropriate size, with an entire "Datum column" that extends up to the Karman Line, to be used for comparison(s).

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 a 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 and identically at their own altitudes in all directions.
Our 1 inch cube is dropped from the Karman Line to reach 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. (One pound now had to be deleted from the atmosphere's total weight, so it was removed from my model's column.

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.”
=========================================================

The point of the atmospheric model was to clear the way for mutual agreement of how a falling object acts in our atmosphere. No rejection of this model was posted by anyone.

=========================================================
Purpose of following ‘rules” – To separate falling behaviours - space and Earth.

(My own) Rules of Falling Objects: (Clarified) -

Rule 1 - Released objects in space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.
Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float.

The foregoing "rules" are indisputable FACTS:

Under Rule 1, objects simply fall, whether in open vacuum or in open space. If they are in open space, they fall in the direction of first impetus. If they are engineered into a designed orbit, they fall in that repetitive orbit. They do not hang suspended in space.

If they are on the Earth, or in an atmosphere on any planet, (or other body that has an atmosphere), they fall straight down, unless they are impelled into an atmosphere at a high rate of speed, in which case they can come in on an angle.

Under Rule 2, if “falling through space” was all that was needed for objects to float in the air inside space ships, then Rule 2 would be violating Rule 1. That would break a fundamental rule of logic since each set of circumstances are true, so a change in any factor of either circumstance cannot fit within the other rule.

The Rule 2 astronauts float in the air inside the shuttle”, and thus do not comply with
Rule 1.

On Earth, the natural atmosphere works even inside a contained pressure – objects sink/fall downwards; as a plastic mixer ball in a pressurized spray paint, or a bolt left inside a pressure tank or a vacuum tank must do.)

These “rules”, while contested and re-explained, did not seem to be condemned or rejected. The argument just went astray, but logic that proves itself is logical.

The point of the “Rules” was to introduce this contention within my theory:
(My contention is that astronauts float in sealed ships because the surrounding blind pressure has no way to find a direction, or to “locate a floor” upon which to set them down. (Pascal’s Law is the explanation for contained pressure.) Ergo – Pressurized chambers in space work differently than they do on Earth.
Ergo – Incidences of falling objects should behave the same across the universe under “Newtonian Gravitational Attraction”, but they do not.
Ergo – The behaviour of “weight” complies with Newton’s 1st,  2nd, and 3rd  Laws.

My theory disputes nothing except the THEORY of “Gravitational attraction”, which in itself, seems to violate Newton’s own 1st Law, since “objects at rest” are alleged to be able to move towards each other over some frame of time, by “gravitational attraction”. Do “objects at rest remain at rest”, or do they not, when we know the 1st Law to be true)?

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

Purpose of the “Coulomb’s Law” consideration (introduced at message 91508).

In the light of the foregoing question about whether or not gravitation is real, my theory looks for other possible causes for things like tidal motion. The introduction of Coulomb and the magnetosphere are meant to open another window of possibility.

The mention of independent electrical forces in my message 95320 were simply swept aside in the only two responses posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

If the sites were thoroughly examined, it can be seen that independent spatially-formed electrical pressures being exerted upon bodies like the Earth and the moon could be a possibility, completely independent from any connection to our own or the moon’s magnetism. The moon always shows us only the face where its magnetism is the strongest. I theorize that it passes off a continent while it is “connected” to us through an isolated repulsive “like-pole” effect by the magnetosphere, and our atmosphere is depressed by 16 percent as the moon begins to seem that it “pull” our tides. What could very well be happening is that the moon’s passage, through the courtesy of the magnetosphere, is actually “pushing” our tides. I contend that an independently space-based repulsive circuit in the magnetosphere is doing what has long been credited to the one Newtonian “Law” (of gravitation), that seems to violate his own proven 1st Law of Motion.

Do whatever you like with this. It’s only a theory.

Thanks

fleep

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8648
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #99 on: 07/06/2007 19:16:59 »
"Rule 1 - Released objects in space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.
Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float.

The foregoing "rules" are indisputable FACTS:"
Sorry, but I dispute rule 2.
The things inside a ship that seem to be floating are in fact, in free fall
It's just that , like the ship they fall past the earth because they are in orbit or on a balistic trajectory. Since they and the ship fall along the same path they "float" from the point of view of the ship's occupants, but they are moving from the point of view of someone here on earth. Specifically, they are accelerating towards the earth at exactly the rate expected from gravitation, if they are near the eath's surface then they are accelerating towards the earth at near 9.8 m/sec/sec.
Rule 1 says everything in the eath's atmosphere falls. I hold that everything outside it falls too. Your rule 2 reflects the fact  that ships are usually in orbit.
That eans that everything whether it's in a ship, a vacuum or the atmosphere falls.
That's also the principle of univesal gravitation.
Everything falls.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #99 on: 07/06/2007 19:16:59 »