Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: fleep on 21/04/2007 15:17:46
-
Hi. I'm new around here.
It seems odd, that if gravity is a “force” which supposedly attracts matter, that when something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. Magnetism, as an “attractor”, between masses, is not as plausible, in this opinion.
Every element is different, and almost no natural elements are magnetic. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.
I have a gravity theory about this, if there is any interest.
I also have to keep wondering why, in what must be billions of years, Janus and Prometheus, two of Saturn’s moons, have never attracted each other and collided, when they are but a short distance apart whenever they trade orbits.
-
Those are good questions, someone will come soon and reply I hope.
I wanted to welcome you to the forum and thank you for your participation here.. Any questions feel free to ask! We will do our best to answer them..
-
Firstly, it is not strictly true that almost no elements are magnetic - what is true is that most elements are not magnetic on a large scale (i.e. all the little bits of magnetism do not line up to form one big magnet, but simply cancel themselves out, so we cannot see the magnetism on a large scale).
Secondly, if the downward force of an object was down to atmospheric pressure, it should not exist within a vacuum chamber (i.e. things should be able to float simply by being placed in a vacuum chamber, while still remaining on this Earth - this simply does not happen).
Thirdly, if solids were forced down by air pressure, then an object with greater surface area should fall faster. In fact the opposite is true, an object with a larger surface area actually falls slower through air, because the aerodynamic drag on the object is actually greater. Simply drop a flat sheet of paper, and thendrop the same piece of paper scrunched up into a ball - the ball of paper will fall faster, showing that the air is resisting the fall rather than providing the force for it.
-
Hi. Thanks for the input. I don't profess to be exactly or always right, so questions and disputes are wlcome. My responses are between your points made, as below.
Firstly, it is not strictly true that almost no elements are magnetic - what is true is that most elements are not magnetic on a large scale (i.e. all the little bits of magnetism do not line up to form one big magnet, but simply cancel themselves out, so we cannot see the magnetism on a large scale).
O.K. I won't argue this, but what about the Janus and Prometheus example? There has been a considerable amount of time for attraction to have caused a collision there.
======================================================
Secondly, if the downward force of an object was down to atmospheric pressure, it should not exist within a vacuum chamber (i.e. things should be able to float simply by being placed in a vacuum chamber, while still remaining on this Earth - this simply does not happen).
Secondly -
The shuttle leaves our atmosphere and goes into the vacuum. The ship has no realization of where it is, of course, or of what is going on.
The ship and everything in it, (discounting fuel consumed), is now exactly the same as it was on the tarmac. Everything had gravity in it, and it still does. The ship is pressurized with the same volume as it was sealed on the tarmac. Everything is exactly the same, until the crew removes their seat belts and begins to float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship.
Back on Earth, they were able to walk to those seats. What just happened here? Why are people floating around?
The ship is sealed with pressure that artificially approximates our atmosphere.
The ship carried away everything that it contained when it was on the tarmac.
The Earth’s gravity is still inside the people and everything else in the ship.
The ship can not “know” when it is falling through space.
There is no friction in space, or any way to physically measure the velocity of the fall.
There is no “concept” of time or motion that the ship can “know”.
The ship does not even “know” that it has left the Earth, or is in a vacuum.
So, why are the unchanged people, in an unchanged ship, floating in the air?
Science ascribes falling through the vacuum of space as a cause of “weightlessness”, but the word itself is only a description of the event. I think that the cause of floating is this:
On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.
A real atmosphere like the one on the Earth, weighs downwards from overhead, and it “knows” where matter with gravity in it “belongs”. The bottom 3.5 miles contains half of the entire weight of the atmosphere, effectively, “trapped against the surface of the planet”. The other half of the atmosphere’s weight is spread out for many tens of miles above the bottom 50%, all the way out to the vacuum.
It is then, a natural rule of physics that masses throughout the atmosphere have gravity, and they have pressure above and around them, in the very same way that the lower atmosphere does. The atmosphere has weight, so it presses down globally upon the planet It would be illogical to say that the atmosphere, which is made of “matter”, is being “pressed downwards”, but a bird that is also made of matter, while gliding through that material atmosphere, is said to be “pulled downwards”, (according to Newton’s theory).
The bird is supported aloft by aeronautic principles and physical design. All unsupported weight simply falls through atmosphere, in the same way that it falls through space. Gravity is neither “pulling” nor “pushing” downwards. In my theory, it is inert and benign. It is a property of matter. Gravity just falls.
We calculate barometric pressure from an overhead column of atmospheric weight, not from a downward pulling force. What we personally weigh is the sum total of all the atomic weights that comprise our individual bodies. There is nothing “pulling us down”. Every atom within our bodies is a “closed vessel”, and they all actually qualify us to be governed by Pascal’s Law. Acceleration related to falling simply has to be from the downward increase in pressure above a falling object.
So where does this notion come from, that gravity “pulls us down”? Sir Isaac Newton theorized it late in the 17th century. It was a theory then, and remains widely taught today, even in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary.
Early in the 20th century, Einstein predicted we might someday find a “Cosmological Constant” in the universe. He was proven correct when it was discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the leadership of Dr. Ray Carlberg. The phenomenon is actually a “negative pressure” that exists throughout the cosmos, permeating everything; whether matter or vacuum. Some call it “dark energy”. The old gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton then, back in 1687, was postulated without any knowledge of this critically important new factor, establishing the real possibility that the gravity portion of his theory is incorrect. (It now seems fairly obvious that gravity is not a “force” at all.) Benign matter simply “falls”, whether in the atmosphere, or in the vacuum.
Equilibrium between pressures:
Newton’s 3rd Law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”
While he is correct in this law, and has long been proven to be so, gravity seems not a “force” that emanates from mass as Newton theorized elsewhere. Any mass that is balanced under Newton’s 3rd Law has gravity within it, but the positive (atmospheric pressure) force pushes globally inwards on the nucleus, and the negative pressure of the cosmos, as a reverse force, “neutralizes that inward pressure”. The availability of both pressures forms a “force cancellation” which is thereby contained as a “closed vessel”, thus fulfilling both Newton’s 3rd and Pascal’s Law, and "creating" gravity. (In my theory).
The word “gravity” (itself), within a material object, should really be a statement that the mass is inert and stable. I believe that all matter in the universe can only be either in equilibrium, (as it is within an atmosphere), or else in some stage of “unbalance”, (as it is within the vacuum of space). Globular masses are “filled” with gravity, and thus are “closed vessels” within the context of Pascal’s Law and Newton’s 3rd Law.
We should have a combination of Pascal’s Law, and Newton’s 3rd Law, and the liberty is taken here to combine both laws and express it in this new way:
“Pascal-Newton Pressure Law” (PNPL):
“A positive atmospheric pressure exerted towards the core of a mass, is cancelled by an equivalent negative pressure exerting back to the positive boundary, creating a closed and pressure-balanced vessel.”
====================================================
Thirdly, if solids were forced down by air pressure, then an object with greater surface area should fall faster. In fact the opposite is true, an object with a larger surface area actually falls slower through air, because the aerodynamic drag on the object is actually greater. Simply drop a flat sheet of paper, and thendrop the same piece of paper scrunched up into a ball - the ball of paper will fall faster, showing that the air is resisting the fall rather than providing the force for it.
=====================================================
Thirdly - Of course you are correct about atmospheric drag. It will be a natural effect that I have not mentioned, because it's taken for granted.
That's my reply for now.
-
I think there are a few inconsistencies in what you say:
-Why would a gas have 'weight' and so be stuck tho the planet but a solid would only fall due to the atmospheric pressure? This idea that every object has intrinsic properties, and only behaves according to those properties, is what Aristotle taught. Early scientists such as Galileo were able to prove that this is simply not the case.
- What about gravity on the Moon. The astronauts found it behaved just like on Earth, at abount 1/6 of the strength despite there being no atmosphere?
On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.
You seem to be ascribing some consciouness - or at least ability to follow instructions - to the air molecules. There is no need for such a metaphysical explanation. The astronauts and the shuttle and everything in it are in 'free fall'. What this means is that each object is separately in orbit around the earth, so relative to each other they appear to 'float'. All being 'in orbit' means is that you are travelling fast enough that the rate at which you are being accelerated towards the earth is exactly matched by the curvature of the earth -you're falling towards it but it keeps moving out of the way! Nothing on the shuttle (except the pilot?) knows it is in orbit, an orbit is simply a natural consequence of moving fast.
Atmospheric Pressure acts equally in all directions on earth as well as in a sealed space shuttle. There is no net force pushing you down from the atmosphere around you. Bear in mind that the pressure at the surface of the earth is ~100kPa or about 10tonnes per square meter. If this were acting on only one side of your body, or on the top of your head it'd be pretty uncomfortable!!! Another example, take a wet plunger and stick it to a smooth overhead surface. It'll stay there. This is because atmospheric pressure is holding it up.
Janus/Prometheus - think of this as meta-stable. They'll go on for thousands of orbits like this but sooner or later one of them is going to get perturbed by the gravitational attraction of another body at just the wrong time. You'll either get a collison or an escape. I've seen something similar suggested for Earth/Venus in a few thousand million orbits...
Try this little thought experiment:
You know what an intertial accelerarometer is? A weight in the middle of a tube with a spring connecting it either end of the tube. As you accelerate forwards holding this device (perhaps in a car) the weight moves backwards - to your point of view - in other words, in the opposite direction to the acceleration and the force that cause it. You see an identical effect if instead of a car you're sitting in a spaceship with the engines running. This is the same thing that makes you feel you are being pushed back in your seat as a car speeds-up.
Now the clever bit... turn your acceloremter through 90 degrees so that it is vertical. Where does the weight go? It moves downards - yep, that means that it is being accelerated upwards. HEADLINE NEWS - the acceleration due to gravity seems to be UP not DOWN!
The trick is to remember that you are holding the weight and you are stood on the ground. The ground is pushing up at your feet at exactly the rate required to stop you accelerating downards under the 'force' of gravity - that is you aren't sinking into the floor - and it is this force/acceleration that the accelerometer is mneasuring. If you take the same device and drop out of an airplane it will (at least initially) stay dead-centre, as both you and it would be behaving 'naturally' in Earth's gravitational field i.e. accelerating at about 10m/s2. You would get an identical result falling in a vertical vacuum tube - the Germans tried this a couple of years ago to see what shape a candle flame would be in freefall!
Your combination of Pascals/Newtons ideas is novel but unnecessary. Mechanics, including gravity, orbits, gases, pressures, is already a self-consistent model that works without trying to add this sort of complication. There may well be minor flaws in the model - such as the precession of the orbit of mercury, that only gets resolved by General Relativety - but its easier to wait until you find one before you seek an alternative explanation.
Having said that, I remember when I studied chemistry we played around with a 'model' involvimg insects (electrons) and flowers (atoms) - with a bit of imagination you could 'explain' almost all of chemistry!
-
Until one has understood, thoroughly, the received wisdom of established, classical, Physics, and Mechanics it is unwise to invent new systems of explanation for common phenomena.
Newton has served us well for a long time and allows us to predict more or less all large scale events. Rigour is the watchword.
There are very few 'modern' physicists who would disagree with his equations. They WORK and explanations, using newtonian physics are remarkably self consistent.
Only when your have something approaching the smartness and education of an Einstein can you avoid falling on your face trying to introduce new theories - even though they can be fun to toy with.
Try to read some more good Science books and follow basic rules. If you don't, you are at the mercy of salesmen who will sell you snake oil and perpetual motion machines.
-
Hi Batroost;
Thanks for the input.
I like to remember that this is a forum, and all ideas and new theories are sacred to their owners. I appreciate that you also understand this, and won’t go recommending books for me to read, and courses that I should take. I won’t debate with people that don’t contest my content. They have their minds molded to the status-quo.
I’m walking out into the cold wind of an academic system that has its mind set on the hierarchical world they have constructed on old theories that remain “theories” to this very day When will they ever declare them to be “laws, and not “theories” anymore?” That will happen when there are no more logical questions to be answered for inquisitive minds like ours. (For one simple example, have a look at):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation
(Problems with Newton)
O.K. let’s go. I’m in red, and you’re in black.-
Why would a gas have 'weight' and so be stuck to the planet but a solid would only fall due to the atmospheric pressure? This idea that every object has intrinsic properties, and only behaves according to those properties, is what Aristotle taught. Early scientists such as Galileo were able to prove that this is simply not the case.
All atmospheric gases have atomic weight, like all other matter. It’s real “weight”, whose total burden makes it possible to state the pressure beneath it in PSI, which is an expression of weight upon a given area. Nothing except vacuum has no weight at all. Molecules of gases of various weights float around in the atmosphere just like tiny bits of debris float around in the living waters of the planet. They don’t all sink because there is atmospheric wind and pressure front movements. The necessary “breathable gases” are spread liberally through the Troposphere where they are required to sustain life.
Gases are not “stuck” to the Earth, but are in ascending “bands” like the troposphere, etc. Their combined atomic weights total 5000 trillion metric tons; i.e. – the weight of all thegases of the atmosphere.
Hydrogen and Helium stay at the topof the atmosphere, because they are lightest, just like silt sits on sand in the water, because it’s lighter than the sand, but all the zones of the atmosphere are in effect “in orbits of relative densities” around the planet. The ocean currents too, in their separate erratic patterns caused by land mass blockages, are also “in orbit” around our planet.
What about gravity on the Moon. The astronauts found it behaved just like on Earth, at about 1/6 of the strength despite there being no atmosphere?
That requires a separate analysis. Let’s get past the Earth atmosphere and the shuttle atmosphere first.
On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.
You seem to be ascribing some consciousness - or at least ability to follow instructions - to the air molecules. There is no need for such a metaphysical explanation. The astronauts and the shuttle and everything in it are in 'free fall'. What this means is that each object is separately in orbit around the earth, so relative to each other they appear to 'float'. All being 'in orbit' means is that you are travelling fast enough that the rate at which you are being accelerated towards the earth is exactly matched by the curvature of the earth -you're falling towards it but it keeps moving out of the way! Nothing on the shuttle (except the pilot?) knows it is in orbit, an orbit is simply a natural consequence of moving fast.
If you understand hydraulics, you will realize that pressure is a “force-command”. The molecules do what they are “pressured to do”. I know what “free-fall” means, but it is the ship which is in that state of motion. The people inside are not in “free-fall”. They are floating because the surrounding cabin pressure doesn’t have a “floor” to put them down upon, (unlike the Earth, where the surface is the “floor”.
Pascal’s Law says that “Pressure exerted on a “fluid” in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them.”
Draw the rocket, and point arrows out at all the walls, all the way around inside it. Now draw arrows around a couple of (drawn) people floating in the artificial atmosphere of the ship. The people are not falling in the ship; they are floating. Apollo 13 wasn’t in orbit around the Earth. It went outwards from the Earth and circled the moon. They floated around in it, just like what happens when a ship orbits the Earth. There goes the “orbiting people” theory.
Atmospheric Pressure acts equally in all directions on earth as well as in a sealed space shuttle. There is no net force pushing you down from the atmosphere around you. Bear in mind that the pressure at the surface of the earth is ~100kPa or about 10tonnes per square meter. If this were acting on only one side of your body, or on the top of your head it'd be pretty uncomfortable!!! Another example, take a wet plunger and stick it to a smooth overhead surface. It'll stay there. This is because atmospheric pressure is holding it up.
I didn’t say there was a net force “pushing us down”. I said that our gravity, (as a property of every one of our atoms), is holding us down. It’s only (non-gaseous) weight that holds everything down. As for the surrounding pressure around us, have you forgotten that the mandatory equal and opposite reaction of every molecular movement in the atmosphere is in effect at the same time? Newton’s 3rd Law prevents our being crushed by a one-way constant downward atmospheric pressure upon us.
Janus/Prometheus - think of this as meta-stable. They'll go on for thousands of orbits like this but sooner or later one of them is going to get perturbed by the gravitational attraction of another body at just the wrong time. You'll either get a collision or an escape. I've seen something similar suggested for Earth/Venus in a few thousand million orbits.
This is unsubstantiated conjecture. I stick with my question about this non-Newtonian anomaly. I think your “plunger and inertial accelerometer” examples should be re-examined too, after you prepare your arguments against what I’m explaining from my own mental perspectives.
Your ball, my friend…..
fleep
-
Hi Batroost;
Here's my answer to your, "astronauts walking on the moon, where there is no atmosphere" question.
When an astronaut is standing on the moon, which has no atmosphere, he is wearing a suit which does have an imported atmosphere. He has gravity within his body, which he also imported from the earth, so he has weight. Weight within the atmosphere in his suit is like weight within our own atmosphere, so the suit allows his gravity, and thus his weight, to make him fall back to the surface of the moon when he strides along the moon surface. This shows that gravity inside an atmosphere anywhere, is an atmospheric weight, which will remain against a “floor’, if one is available. Weight always falls. The guy has gravity, which “is” weight, (because gravity is a property of matter in my theory), and so do the gases that he is kept alive in.
Gravity/weight falls through a vacuum, if the astronaut is spacewalking. There is no atmosphere around him, and the ship is falling, so he can not stand on it, but the moon is not “falling”. It is in stable orbit beneath him, but the gravity in his body must weigh down towards the bottom through the atmosphere in his suit, so his boots keep returning to the ground when he jumps along. This logic is consistant with what I've said so far, I believe.
Waiting patiently for your arguments please. I overlook questions that my theory creates sometimes, so if you have any beefs, please let me know.
Thanks
Fleep
-
I'm reading the above but i'm still very confused .
So your saying things only stick to the surface of the moon or the earth if they have an atmosphere pushing down on them or if they contain an imported atmosphere like your moon example.
So why does anything stick to the moon, why is the moon covered in dust or more importantly when the astronauts kicked up dust on the moon why did it fall back down to the surface.
Why does a block of lead weigh more than a block of alluminium.
-
Quite a construction fleep...
As a Physicist I'm taught to look for simple explanations. My advice is to look hard at what you've written and compare it with classical mechanics. Occam's razor would suggest that your constructions, like the pre-copernican/pre-keplerian proposed epicycles, is so complicated it feels wrong even before a detailed analysis.
btw: Astronatuts on Apollo 10, 11, 12, 13 etc.. heading out to the moon were also in free fall. Study the maths!
Examples where your arguments are inconsistent/incompelete:
When the astronauts on the moon dropped a golf ball - outside their pressure suits - it fell towards the moon.
When a satellite orbits teh earth it has no atmospehere but carries on orbiting - if graivity is tied-up with air pressure why woudl it do this? Why would the Moon's of Mars carry on in their orbits?
because gravity is a property of matter in my theory
Absolutely. This isn't new. Einstien claimed that intertial mass and gravitational mass were indistinguishable and (so far) no-one ha sfound any evdience to suggest otherwise - though people do look. But if you're saying this why bring the atmosphere into this at all? Why not just accept that gravity comes from matter?
Another example: Sealed containers; try a pressurised aircraft, it is possible to make these airtight, or a bathesphere in the ocean. In neither will you find yourself weightless - it is the orbital (closed or open) free-fall nature of the shuttle's motion that gives the experience of weightlessness.
This is unsubstantiated conjecture
Only in the sense that any computer model of three-(or upwards)-body problems is conjecture. But it's the best we've got (apart from watching what happens).
Your ball, my friend…..
I'd suggest, friend, that the onus was on you to disprove Newton. Whilst you have provided an alternative (albeit complex) explanation, I've yet to see anything that makes me doubt Isaac and subscribe to fleep.
-
To Ukmicky and Batroost;
Thanks for your input. Before I back up and reassemble the whole theory more briefly, I thank you for your criticisms. I made a mistake in bringing up the atmospheric consideration (in the suit)on the moon. This quickly thought-out explanation took me off my own logic track, and now I have to reconsider that part.
I am still convinced of most of what I've said about the earth's atmosphere and what goes on in the vacuum.
What I must re-think is what is going on with the surface of bodies in the vacuum that have no atmosphere. It's still a work in progress.
I have come to this point over 12 years of whittling away the traditional hyerarchichal beliefs and covenient mathematics that were created to support old anomalies in Newton and the rest. I make no apologies for thinking in my own way. That's how one of two things could happen, as with any complex study.
I will either become a believer, or I will raise an important possibility, hopefully before I die. I'm 65 now, and most of my accomplishments were in the steel industry. I retired as a Product Metallurgist, so I have a lot of experience in related chemistry and its workings. I worked in hydraulics for twelve years of my working life as well.
Please don't think I'm bragging. I am not a physicist and I never will be, but I'm not completely "unequipped" to think. Thanks for your patience.
fleep
-
I'm 65 now, and most of my accomplishments were in the steel industry. I retired as a Product Metallurgist, so I have a lot of experience in related chemistry and its workings. I worked in hydraulics for twelve years of my working life as well.
Thanks for the info. Although forums like this can be tremendously enlightening - seeing how other people view things you thought you understood! - you always run the risk of alienating others. In particular, it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone who's thought very carefully about what they are saying (and in consequence come up with something that is way-outside your own world view) and, in contrast a young poster who's picked-up one or two 'facts' and strung them together with no thought - or (as I sometimes supsect) simply to cause controversy.
No offence was intended. I am concerned that it is easy for someone (like me) with a tradiotional physics background to see an alternative theory as either necessary or credible. Though often I find that where I disagree strongly it's simply due to a difference in language i.e. I interepret the words one way and the original poster meant something very different.
With this particualr thread I'm still in the "I can't see the problem" box - Newton; refined by relativety, seems fine to me. I suppose I need to see a concrete example where the current explanations don't work.
-
Hi to Batroost, Ukmicky, (and any others who wish to participate:)
Here begins the whole re-expression of my theory:
Excuse me please for saying so, but I believe that the “basic processes” of the universe deserve to be examined from perspectives that might have never been considered before. I claim no special authority, but if I would like to be taken seriously in the slightest way, this theory must be as explicit as it can be expressed. Perhaps it can best be quashed at this fundamental level if it earns no higher consideration, which I am ready to admit, it might not. I only submit this thinking for a learned consideration, and I thank even those who will attack the logic. I too, am still trying to learn what truth is.
===============================================================
The weight of our atmosphere exerts a constant 14.7 pounds of pressure on every square inch of the human body, from every direction. We would be crushed if there was no equal and opposite (Newton’s 3rd Law) constant reaction to this external pressure. That reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction. Atmospheric pressure is expressed in weight over area, (as in PSI - pounds/sq. inch), so it seems logical that their collective reactions, possibly in relationship to the total external area of the body’s total mass, would automatically create a 3rd law reaction for the entire body; otherwise there would be a pressure imbalance within a human body. This reaction would have to be a constant formula that works in every human mass, regardless of its surface area, volume or density. Surface area, after all, is a definer of the contents of a closed vessel, such as a human body. A hydraulic tank’s containment volume is then, a partner in the effect of the applied pressure of the system. The fluid is the “source” of the equal and opposite reaction of the piston within the cylinder. Pascal’s law is very clear:
“Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel, is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them.”
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform.
The Supernova Legacy team discovered in 2005, that the entire universe is filled with negative pressure, (N.P.), which works (perhaps), rather like the “operating platform” of a computer. It was a confirmation that Einstein’s theory of a “Cosmological Constant” is a reality. It is what was once called “Dark Energy”, by all who were seeking to find such a thing out there. (Newton knew nothing of N.P. of course, since it was found in 2005.)
Everything in the universe is “adjacent” to negative pressure that simply must have a role to play, in association with matter. It fills the entire void (vacuum) of the universe as “dark energy”, and this is where the theory portion of this writing begins.
When N.P. comes in contact with matter, it unites within neutrons as an invisible, unreadable (being negative), pressure that balances the positivism of the proton. The net product of that union of pressures (in my theory) would be an atomic (neutron/proton) pressure balance which I believe to be what we call “gravity”. This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind. All that gravity would do in matter is to impart the “ability” to express the weight of its mass.
So, what would be the role of that gravity? It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum. This would seem to signify that if the open vacuum is only filled with (unused) negative pressure, then an orbiting process must operate according to an unrelated “command/process” that has no relationship with the construction rules of matter itself. That is to say, that the composition of matter has one set of rules, and “controlled motion”, such as orbiting, is derived from another process that we have not yet come to understand. The “orbiting process” would involve the movement of mass that apparently involves both controlled attraction and controlled repulsion, since once again, the 3rd Law must be in play.
By separating the roles in which matter is constructed and “operates” and orbiting processes are “controlled”, we allow ourselves to seek the independent means by which the two might be related or unrelated. An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects. That is to say, that the contents of a rocket ship might behave in one way if the ship is within a “controlled” orbit, but need not be expected to act in the same way when, (e.g.), the ship is “commanded” into a “man-made orbit” which is designed to “sling” a rocket ship around the moon, and back towards the earth. This is a “non-natural orbit”.
The fact that the contents react the same way in either circumstance, on the other hand, is almost absolute evidence that there are no natural rules for the anomaly. The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in either (real or man-made)orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down. The impression that internal masses are falling through space is not necessarily absolutely correct. The ship is falling through space. The passengers are simply riding inside an enclosed volume of surrounding pressure. They are not falling at all, but floating around in an enclosed atmospheric environment that traditionally and naturally seeks a “floor” upon which matter should drop. They are experiencing the internal 3rd Law reaction as explained earlier, but their atmosphere does not “know” where to set its gravity-laden masses down since no “atmospheric floor” is “specified” within the surrounding pressure. Even without an atmosphere, any gravity-laden body out there must still be a "floor". If something lands on, or crashes into it, why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.
There is no natural situation in the universe (that I am aware of), to which a closed vessel containing an atmosphere can be compared, so my theory seems more credible to me, than something that the universe might never have encountered naturally, (before space travel was initiated.)
===============================================================
Before I go too far again, please consider what has been said and create your questions or arguments. I will attempt to defend myself, even while fully expecting that I might have missed something important once again. I will proceed from where the theory stands now, only with your agreement, or with the “permission” that an accepted answer to your (any) questions will resolve. Some questions might slow the process, and some might even end the whole theory. C’est la vie”.
I have not begun from scratch as a “new thread”, in case what has been said in earlier expressions of this theory must be returned for reference purposes.
I thank you for your challenges. That’s what keeps old folks feeling young again.
Best wishes;
fleep
-
Such a detailed post deserves a detailed answer:
That reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.
Strictly No. The reaction comes from the stress you're putting on the bonding between molecules.
If you stand in a bath filled with atoms or molecules that are not bonded togerther you'd simply displace them and sink - perhaps liquid helium is your best bet as the intra-atomic forces are very low (only Van de Waals forces remain). If that hasn't given you cold feet ( [:0]) think of standing on a concrete floor. The reason you don't sink into the concrete is that the atoms in the concrete are so strongly held togeteher they won't move out of the way; and as your molecules/atoms are locked in a similar tight array and both sets are strongly electrically negative on the outside, you appear to be encountering a 'solid' surface. In other words, the illusion of solidity on a macroscopic scale is down to electrostatic forces between atoms that are constrained not to move by interatomic or molecular bonds.
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction.
You have to remember that macroscopic models break down once you get to the microscopic level. Classical (macroscopic) electromagnetic theory would have us believe that an electron would radiate away all of its energy as it orbited a nucleus. In reality this doesn't happen at all, and its one of the reasons why the simple orbiting electron model has to be abandoned - though of course it is still a useful model in chemistry.
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform.
Nope you've lost me here [:(]. The protons and neutrons in a nuecleus are held together by a (pretty well quantified) nuclear attraction that is strong enough to overcome the mutual electrical repulsion of the protons. There are 'models' of this behaviour that look a bit like a fluid (e.g. Gamov's Liquid Drop model) but these are very much introductory learning tools/simplifications. There are many measureable properties of an atomic nucleaus that don't fit such a simple model. I can't see any reason/evidence to consider neutrons and protons to be exterting any kind of pressure on anything - surely this is pure invention on your part?
The Supernova Legacy team discovered in 2005, that the entire universe is filled with negative pressure, (N.P.), which works (perhaps), rather like the “operating platform” of a computer. It was a confirmation that Einstein’s theory of a “Cosmological Constant” is a reality. It is what was once called “Dark Energy”, by all who were seeking to find such a thing out there. (Newton knew nothing of N.P. of course, since it was found in 2005.)
I think the jury's still out on this 'discovery'. I'm not dismissing it as it's quite an attractive idea [;)]. I simply regard it as not yet proven - but I'm not an astrophysicist.
This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind.
This isn't bourne out by experiment. It's possible to see the force exterted by accelerated atoms on a target and/or the damage they cause.
It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum.
But how does this explain an 'open' orbit i.e. something moving past an object without being in a closed orbit. For example, the Voyager spacecraft's path was clearly affected by passage past Jupiter but they aren't coming back..?
That is to say, that the composition of matter has one set of rules, and “controlled motion”, such as orbiting, is derived from another process that we have not yet come to understand.
A trite answer would be "Occam's Razor?". I'm not going to use trite answers. Oops I just did! [::)]
An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects.
A strong anthropocentric principle this one. As a Physicist (and, personally but not necessarily, an athiest) I can't accept this one. But that's a point of faith. Ah. Bugger! [>:(] Anyway there are natural objects in open 'orbits'.
The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in either (real or man-made) orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down.
As they would in an evacuated ship. The air is irrelevant to weightlessness. And what about natural gas bubbles in meteors? They appear to follow 'natural' orbits?
If something lands on, or crashes into it, why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.
Because gravity is (roughly) 36 order of magnitude weaker [:o] than the electromagnetic force! The only reason that gravity is 'everyday' for us is because the earth is so massive. There is a gravitational attraction between obejcts in a spaceship but this is tiny compared with, for example, the forces acting on teh objects from the air conditioning!
Fleep: - thanks for this. Nothing is more fun for a physicist than being asked difficult questions. It forces all of us to think in new ways about things we thought we understood. In this instance I think where you're going wrong is mixing properties of macroscopic matter (e.g. pressure) with those of microscopic matter. For the first newton/relativety works pretty well. For the second, quantum mechanics. Nope the two theories don't fit together everywhere but if you're looking for a mioddle ground perhaps an exploration into statistical thermodynamics might help? I seem to remember that Maxwell's statistical theory of gases is quite an eye opener; as long as you accept it is only a modelling tool.
Or put another way, people often describe the behaviour of electrons in a metal as a 'fluid'. Much of their behaviour does seem to fit this model but it can't, for example, explain how a zener diode works; this requires an understanding (or at least a belief in!) quantum tunneling.
Re-reading this post I can see that I've mixed macro/micro models myself in a few places. But that's just the nature of physics. You pick models up and use them where they are useful. If you get evidence that doesn't fit the model then tyou look for a model that it useful in different circumstances. That's not to say that either model is truly correct and, more importantly, you must be very careful not to use a model in an inappropriate place and expect to get the right answer.
Best wishes.
-
Hi Batroost;
Your comments are in red. The quotes are mine that you took exception to.
That (3rd Law) reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.
Strictly No. The reaction comes from the stress you're putting on the bonding between molecules.
Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction.
You have to remember that macroscopic models break down once you get to the microscopic level. Classical (macroscopic) electromagnetic theory would have us believe that an electron would radiate away all of its energy as it orbited a nucleus. In reality this doesn't happen at all, and its one of the reasons why the simple orbiting electron model has to be abandoned - though of course it is still a useful model in chemistry.
Pls look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_vibrations
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”. They “deviate from their equilibrium positions”, but “stress”, which is an implication of possible bond failure, is not a possibility that is mentioned. My explanation has taken some of these factors into consideration, and that’s the reason why some of my explanations sometimes sound “elementary”.
Sorry Batroost, but I don’t understand your implication here. The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing, and achieve it in the way I have described. I’m sticking to that.
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform
Nope you've lost me here. The protons and neutrons in a nucleus are held together by a (pretty well quantified) nuclear attraction that is strong enough to overcome the mutual electrical repulsion of the protons. I can't see any reason/evidence to consider neutrons and protons to be exerting any kind of pressure on anything - surely this is pure invention on your part?
Exactly. It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process, (like the current theory is), designed to explain something that may be a truth that has been disguised by tailor-made math that is created to compensate for something that may have not been adequately understood in the first place.The discovery of negative pressure has been an opportunity to re-think.
Math has been used as a ‘fix’ for many such enigmas, and that’s how the whole hierarchical mess might have come to be. Nobody ever questions math that “works”, once it is set in place, as a “bandaid”, or a “bridge’ to get past a gap in our actual knowledge. I’m not insisting I’m right, just suggesting another theory. Don’t forget that please.
This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind.
This isn't born out by experiment. It's possible to see the force exerted by accelerated atoms on a target and/or the damage they cause.
Maybe I should not have said that “it” could not exert a force, but that gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all. You are stating that an accelerated atom (if you mean as in a cyclotron), will cause damage, and being solid matter, I certainly agree that it will, upon impact. I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this. It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.
It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum.
But how does this explain an 'open' orbit i.e. something moving past an object without being in a closed orbit. For example, the Voyager spacecraft's path was clearly affected by passage past Jupiter but they aren't coming back?
I regard this as being a question that requires a specific scientific answer (that may not exist)from the experts. Jupiter has a substantial atmosphere much different than our own, and the effects relating to the bypassing of any body or planet in space are probably peculiar to the environment of each specific body. As a simple theoretical example, if there was a “super-magnetic body” out there, and a rocket tried to pass it; this might be far more difficult to accomplish than getting by one that was not magnetic.
An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects.
A strong anthropocentric principle this one. As a Physicist (and, personally but not necessarily, an athiest) I can't accept this one. But that's a point of faith. Anyway there are natural objects in open 'orbits'.
Again, it is a theoretical possibility that has nothing to do with ‘faith’. Yes, there are things like comets in open “orbits”, but who am I to explain what has never been explained by any of the experts. You ask much of me, sir.
The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in an either (real or man-made) orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down.
As they would in an evacuated ship. The air is irrelevant to weightlessness. And what about natural gas bubbles in meteors? They appear to follow 'natural' orbits?
I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.
I believe that without a pressurized atmosphere in an unnatural closed chamber like a ship, the whole interior of the ship is simply a “floor”, because there is no “pressure confusion” as I described it. If it is in an open or closed vacuum chamber, anything could rest against any inside wall that it falls upon. See next.
If something lands on, or crashes into it, (the moon), why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? Gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", (like a body without an atmosphere, or even without a natural orbit), there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.
There is a gravitational attraction between objects in a spaceship …
Remember that my theory contends that gravity is benign/inert. I don’t theorize there to be any such thing as “gravitational attraction”, because gravity has no properties that are a ‘force” that can exert itself outside the nucleic boundary,within my theory.
Maybe we are looking at the word ‘properties” in different ways. My reference for the word “properties”, is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties
All in all, that’s where I’m at right now. Do you want me to continue into the theory, or have you more questions? Do you want to identify where we agree to disagree for now?
Thanks, and best wishes.
Fleep
-
SORRY - hit the POST button before I'd finished - please forgive the Modify...
Fleep - I have't tried to address all your comments; I think it is becoming clearer where are differences in understanding and approach might lie:
Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?
No this isn't conjectural at all. Bonds are not an absolute. As an example consider hydrogen bonding between water molecules. These affect the macroscopic properties of the fluid (e.g. the boiling point is raised) but there is nothing permanent about any of these bonds - they are in a (very) dynamic equilibrium. There are many examples of bonds being pushed to higher potential energy states before breaking. This is all I intended to convey by stress.
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”.
That's an odd statement? The only reason that the atoms have vibrational behaviour, rather than simply flying off into space is that they are pulled back by the bond. You stretch the bond without putting in enough energy and it pulls the atom back.
The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing,
The 3rd law is perfectly satisfied by the vibration - e.g. stretching a bond - acting on both ends of a bond simultaneously. There is no need to invoke an external reaction.
It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process
But I think this is where science differs from fantasy... I could just as easily say that it is an emotional attraction between electrons and protons that holds atoms together or that the reason that liquid water is transparent to light is that they had an argument and won't talk to each other anymore. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Your use of the word 'pressure' in this context - with no evidence to show that any pressure is exerted - is, to me, no different from a New Age Hippy talking about the 'energy' that are getting from Glastonbury Tor.
gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all
Why not? Gravity is a measureable phenomena. If everything material is made of atoms weher else would it come from?
I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this.
But I can see teh effect of external electrical fields, and magnetism - both of which work fine in a vacuum. And measurements show that these exhibit the same inverse square behaviour as gravity. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces are a little differently but both are measureable as remote behaviour. So why should gravity act any differently?
It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.
This is not true. An atom is not like a solid billiard ball; it is a dynamic collection of dis-similar objects. Many of the propertoes of atoms such as Van de Waals forces, the ability to form ionic and/or covalent bonds, the ability to ionise, exist because an atom is not inert. The forces only ccancel out when seen at a distance - close-up it is very different.
what has never been explained by any of the experts
But classical mechanics DOES explain open orbits using exactly the same maths as closed orbits. There is no gap waiting to be filled here...
I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.
Ok - try this thought experiment. You contend I believe that weightlessness (floating) in a spaceship is related to atmposhere. So imagine you're there - you're floating right - and you've just died. This makes it easier for the next bit because I'm going to let teh air out of a very small hole.... eventually there will be a vacuum in the spacecraft and (if I understand you correctly) bodies (ahem!) in that craft will now behave differently? But when - at half an atmosphere? A tenth? A millioneth? One of the beautiful things about physics is that the key theories exhibit continuous behaviour as conditions are varied continuously. So where is the change in behaviour you are advocating?
within my theory
I think we are looking at the word "theory" in a different way. In observing astonomical phenomoena it is possible to develop different theories tha could each, independently, give rise to observed measurements. These are then competing theories, and the current paradigm will often shift as new evidence is presented/disputed/refuted. In all of the examples you've given there is no inconsistency with current mechanics. Instead there are clear (to me) discrepancies between what you're suggesting and observational evidence. I really DON'T want to sound offensive (honest!) but this seems to be ignoring experiment, so can't be a valid theory.
-
Hi Batroost, (and anybody else following this, if any)
You are in red.
Quote -No this isn't conjectural at all. Bonds are not an absolute. As an example consider hydrogen bonding between water molecules. These affect the macroscopic properties of the fluid (e.g. the boiling point is raised) but there is nothing permanent about any of these bonds - they are in a (very) dynamic equilibrium. There are many examples of bonds being pushed to higher potential energy states before breaking. This is all I intended to convey by stress.
O.K. – Let’s agree on one thing, if you will. Wikipedia has an article called “Atomic THEORY”, including a sub-category called “Modern atomic “THEORY”. Atomic structure is still a THEORY today. That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span. I don’t think you can use an argument that involves a gas, as affected by a boiling process to speak to “bonding” within all atoms in general. We are speaking of “natural atoms”, not anything as affected by any influential external factor, (like “boiling”).
Quote But I think this is where science differs from fantasy. Your use of the word 'pressure' in this context - with no evidence to show that any pressure is exerted (etc.)
What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”? You have quoted no proven science to support your “stress” theory. I’m still sticking with my 3rd law equalization of negative and positive pressures combined to be gravity itself, which is what imparts the “facility” for mass to express the volume of all the atomic weights contained within it as the weight of that specific total mass.
That mass can be weighed on earth because of the atmospheric pressure surrounding it. It has the same gravity and thus, the same (but unreadable/unscalable) “weight” in the vacuum of space, but in neither place is there an internally-generated “force” that extends outside the boundary of the nucleus. Each atom in a mass is balanced by the 3rd Law.
(Don’t forget that you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level. The atmosphere is thinner).
Quote - Gravity is a measurable phenomenon. If everything material is made of atoms where else would it come from?
So? Newton was proven wrong because Mercury didn’t “follow his theoretical reasoning”, so Einstein came up with “General relativity” involving “curvature of space-time”, etc. (“In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to space-time curvature instead of to a force.” (Wikipedia). Einstein's theory “worked” for Mercury, so then he made up the math to show that his theory has a fundamental way to be seen. Another “doctored theory”. Everybody has the same right to compose something else, and frankly, I believe that “simplicity” is more plausible, and should at least be examined, with absolutely all due respect for the genius that could construct such an elaborate “possibility” as “space-time”..
Again I am saying that gravity has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself, since an atom can not do this, (in my theory).
Quote - But I can see the effect of external electrical fields, and magnetism - both of which work fine in a vacuum. And measurements show that these exhibit the same inverse square behavior as gravity. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces are a little differently but both are measurable as remote behavior. So why should gravity act any differently?
So? We live in an electrical universe. “Radio waves” are coming in from “out there” all the time. They work fine in a vacuum. So does magnetism. Why shouldn’t they exhibit the same “inverse behavior” as gravity? They are measurements performed on mass, where gravity “resides”. You can't "measure' transmissions from space if you have no idea, (and can't factor in) where they originated.
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.” (Wikipedia) This explanation does not describe “Nuclear Force” as “remote behavior”.
Quote - An atom is not like a solid billiard ball; it is a dynamic collection of dissimilar objects. Many of the properties of atoms such as Van de Waals forces, the ability to form ionic and/or covalent bonds, the ability to ionize, exist because an atom is not inert.
I know that that an atom isn't "solid", but my basic theory of the atom has no business talking about subatomic particles if my basic concept of the atom itself has not yet been considered as (maybe) plausible. That would be a waste of my time.
“Van der Waals forces are a class of intermolecular forces which arise from the polarization of molecules into dipoles (or multipoles). (Wikipedia). (Ergo - They are not related to the interior of individual atoms, but work at the electron cloud level.)
Quote - But classical mechanics DOES explain open orbits using exactly the same maths as closed orbits.
Nope. ”An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown. Math also has limits.
Quote - Ok - You contend that weightlessness (floating) in a spaceship is related to atmosphere. So imagine you're floating - and you've just died. I'm going to let the air out of a very small hole.... eventually there will be a vacuum in the spacecraft and bodies (ahem!) in that craft will now behave differently? But when - at half an atmosphere? A tenth? A millioneth? One of the beautiful things about physics is that the key theories exhibit continuous behaviour as conditions are varied continuously. So where is the change in behaviour you are advocating?
Well, let’s look at your example, except, “backwards”. I drop dead and fall on the floor of the ship, and it takes off. I stay on the floor and the ship ascends through, and then out of the atmosphere. I am in an artificial atmosphere, and my body has its earth gravity still inside it. The ship enters the vacuum, and I don’t rise off the floor because I’m dead, and nothing is making me 'move". I’m not disturbing the air, and if there are no “strong” currents in the artificial atmosphere, I’m still surrounded by a pressure that does not “know where” to set me down, or even that I’m “against the floor”. I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something. This too, is a “continuous behaviour” whose (any) change can only be governed by something that makes my body move. I might fall up against the overhead “pressure floor”, and lightly “bounce off”, depending on the force of the ship’s shuddering motion.
Say I had fallen dead in front of a ventilation outlet. That light breeze could “push’ my body aimlessly up into the artificial atmosphere that doesn’t have any “plan’ to put things down. Who knows where I end up? I could be floating or “laying” in the air, ½” from the floor.
NOW. A hole appears in the ship, and the artificial atmosphere begins to “drain” into the vacuum”. Just like a jet plane being depressurized by a gunshot through the wall, or even an explosion, the pressure will all escape, perhaps instantly, if the hole is large enough. I fly out the hole, or I fall on the floor, just like a meteor lands on a planet that has no atmosphere, and stays there.
You have probably heard this, but if I was on a skating rink and there was no such thing as friction, I would simply have to breathe, and I would instantly begin to glide backwards towards the rink boards. Similarly, it takes almost nothing to make a body “float” in an artificial atmosphere that has no “floor”. Motion without a pressure’s “knowledge of its target”, is like being in the ship, without friction.
Quote - I think we are looking at the word "theory" in a different way. In observing astronomical phenomena it is possible to develop different theories that could each, independently, give rise to observed measurements. These are then competing theories and the current paradigm will often shift as new evidence is presented/disputed/refuted. In all of the examples you've given there is no inconsistency with current mechanics. Instead there are clear (to me) discrepancies between what you're suggesting and observational evidence. I really DON'T want to sound offensive (honest!) but this seems to be ignoring experiment, so can't be a valid theory.
Batroost, my friend, (and I sincerely mean that in my address to you), this might be disintegrating into a philosophical debate. We occasionally become entangled in semantics. Perhaps these things are inevitable in an exchange of thoughts that emanate from different minds, but our disagreements are becoming unfair to others who might be interested in the barest argument of the topic. Is my theory all wet, or is there a gram of genuine new consideration hidden somewhere within it? Remember that I make no such declaration. Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”. If you would like to isolate this exchange, then I need your e-mail address. I don’t know how we exchange these in this forum, do you? If you wish to discontinue this completely, you simply have to go silent on me.
I have, and still do, appreciate, “the chase”.
Best wishes
fleep
-
Fleep thank you for continuing the chase !
If you don't object I'll pursue things a little further...
That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.
Agreed! (But also fair game for rigorous criticism).
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span.
Ah but that IS a difference in approach. Conventional atomic theory presents an explanation for all of these phenomena across all three phases of matter. If you throw in a bit of physical chemistry you get an explanation for plasmas as well. If it's not broke...? Boiling points of fluids are highly dependent on inter-atomic or inter-molecular forces - in conventional atomic theory/chemistry this 'explains' why the boiling point of helium is lower than that of hydrogen, and why the boiling point of water is so much higher than that of other similar simple molecules e.g. methane.
What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”?
Without a stress being developed in the bond there would be no force to restore an atom to its original position in the lattice. A vibration requires a restorative force or you break another of Newtons laws - the one about moving at a constant velocity unless disturbed by an external force. Monatomic atoms (e.g. helium gas) do not vibrate physically - again there is no restitution force to sustain a vibration - though they do undergo continual changes e.g. charge re-distribution - whic incidentally is the original of Van De Waals forces in atomic helium ; you can't always trust Wicki to give you the whole picture. Stress - from a physical not an engineering point of view - is simply a word used to indicate that the bond is in a higher energy state than usual and is, in this case, exerting a force acting in opposition to the motion.
you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level
As I do in an aircraft travelling at constant speed/height - even though the air pressure around me is (typicaly) only about 1.5 psi less than the pressure on the ground - or are you suggesting that it is the air outside the aircraft that decides how much I'm going to weigh? In which case, let's turn it around and ask about how much you weigh visiting the wreck of the titanic? The pressure outside the bathyspere is a couple of hundred atmospheres...
Actually there is a far better (and entirely natural) answer. Measured values: Your weight reduces by about 0.28% as you climb Everest. However, your weight increases by around twice as much (0.5%) as you move from the equator to the poles. This is because the Earth is not truly spherical - you are further from the Earth's centre-of-mass at the equator than at the poles so the acceleration due to gravity is less. BUT the air pressure is no different at the poles to the equator - though admittedly it is likely to be colder most of the time (but what about equatorial desert night time temperatures)? BUT we can't be suggesting that grvaity varies with air pressure of temperature can we, because air pressure at the surface varies by about +/-10% without any measureable change in gravity? No don't go there.
Another “doctored theory”.
Quite right. This is the nature of Physics, Chemistry, Biology. We Agree!
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.”
Another Wicki half-story. The weak nuclear force is generally credited with holding quarks together in sub-atomic particles. So, perversely it is most easily observed in teh decay of theose particles e.g. beta-decay. The Strong nuclear force is believed to act directly on sub-atomic particles but a residual of this force is be thought to be responsible for holding proton and neutrons together into a nucleus. What is interesting here though is not the 'normal' manifestations of these forces but rather the measurements you can make of these forces by, for example, shooting high-energy particles close to other nuclei. These experiments do clearly show that these forces act remotely i.e. they can be measured (weakly) outside of the nucleus. Incidentally, there's some really interesting results here - the nucleus appears to be a different size, shape and density depending on what you use to measure it (Physics is Fun!).
An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown.
No. It isn't. Wicki is unhelpful (!) if it suggests uncertainty in the outcome for the scenario described. The 'two-body' problem is algebraically solvable. There is no uncertainty in this one. It is only with three or more bodies involved that you need (usually) to resort to numerical methods. But even then, planning the paths of the Voyager spacecraft across millions of miles, past dozens of planets and moons was possible - even with 1970's computers. And you can do the same calulations for Halley's comet, or comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 colliding with Jupiter.
I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something.
This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - lets's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, just to keep things simple (and to avoid anyone dying) - behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?
Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”.
Yes - and this is perhaps getting a bit philosophical, and certainly off-topic! - I heard someone respond to this criticism of the "Theory of Evolution" by saying - "Yes, it's a theory. Just the like the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun...". Sooner or later enough evidence is accumulated for a theory to rise above its peers as simply being the most credible explanation. Never the final word, but the best one to be going on with until some credible evidence appears to discredit it.
If you would like to isolate this exchange,
I'm happy not to, if you are. I think this is just the sort of discussion the Forum is good for.
Best wishes
Batroost.
-
Hi Batroost.
Sure. We can continue right here in this forum. I might be wrong in what I say; possibly even in my entire theory, but I have thick skin. “I think, therefore I am”. (I wish it was me that said that originally).
O.K. Let’s just try for now to settle the thing that bothers you the most about my theory. (Floating in the air in a shuttle.) We can continue when we settle that point. You said:
This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - let's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?
I will address the bolded question last. First, we’ll bone up on our Pascal’ Law, (just as a written reminder of what it says and means. I realize you know that law very well, but I want to break it up here, and compare it to a hydraulic, or even a pneumatic piston pressure system.
“Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel, (pressure cylinder or shuttle interior walls), is transmitted undiminished in ALL directions, (including INWARDLY on every square inch of any mass in the fluid), with equal force on all EQUAL surfaces, (which can only be logical), and at right angles to them.”
This means “ALL surfaces” of course, including the interior walls of the closed vessel, and the surfaces of any mass that might be in the fluid.
First, we will say that the closed system is inside the sealed shuttle upon the Earth. A wrench left in the fluid of the system has gravity, as does the fluid and the vessel. The vessel has the artificial atmosphere's molecular gravity weight pushing all around the exterior of the closed system. How does the wrench in the system “know” which way is down? It “knows it”, because it is NOT weightless because nothing is weightless on the Earth, so it sinks to the bottom of the system. Every thing that “obeys gravity” is “obeying" the fact that its weight is “recognized” anywhere within our natural atmosphere, as "something" that has to either drop, or sink.
Gravity “imparts” weight in a mass.
The fluid inside the system is its own “atmosphere”, regardless of whether it is fluid or air”. On earth, “what goes up MUST come down”.
Now. Shoot the whole works into the vacuum of space in the shuttle, and try it again, where everything that goes up, obviously does not HAVE to come down. We know that, because everything floats around in the artificial atmosphere inside the ship, and that includes a mass (like a wrench, for example,) that might have been forgotten in the hydraulic (or pneumatic) system. The wrench is floating in the fluid in the tank, because it can not be doing a different thing than what is happening in the air outside the closed system. We call it “weightlessness”, even though every mass in the ship still has its mass, and therefore, still has its weight as well, even though we can not scale that weight to verify that it’s still there. It didn’t just disappear.
What is different here? The wrench sank in the tank on the Earth. It floats in the tank in the vacuum, even though there is an artificial atmosphere in the ship that pretty closely matches the Earth atmospheric pressure. What else is different? The ship is falling through nothingness. So what? Do you believe that the ship “knows” that? Does the atmosphere inside the ship “know” that? Does the fluid in the closed hydraulic system “know” that? Every “thing” inside the ship is “ignorant” of the fact that it is “supposed to fall to the floor”, but it does not fall, because the gravity in each mass does not “know” which direction is up, down, or sideways. The pressure on everything in the ship, and everything in the tank, is “lost in space”. If the ship could stop falling and remain motionless in the vacuum by firing a powerful set of retro-engines, do you suppose that everybody would crash down to the floor? Not a chance.
If a bowling ball (on the Earth) was completely and uniformly encircled by high velocity streams of air that kept it contained within a loosely defined “sphere” of diminishing wind velocity (as the wind approached the center point, the ball would stay floating in the air within that sphere, as long as the streams stayed uniform and continuous. That is “(metaphorically) like” what is happening in a shuttle, where the people floating in the artificial atmosphere are surrounded by a sustained pressure that is being exerted all around them. They can not fall to any “floor” because, like the wind stream on Earth, the sustained pressure is coming from “everywhere”.
The people inside think they do not fall because the ship is falling through space. They were trained, like everybody everywhere, to believe that falling through space is the “reason” that they float in the air. That is no kind of “reason”. Why would anybody bother to contest what seems to be “obvious”? I seriously disagree with their “theory” because I have never found a single instance where that “theory” was tested in some way. It just seems far too obvious. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to, but that old reasoning is illogical to me. (Forgive me please, if i'm wrong.)
It is unquestionably obvious that the vacuum is a different “environment” in which the “rules’ that prevail are not the same as they are within an atmosphere. And why would they not be different? Science creates math all the time to explain exceptions that do not follow the popular theory of the day, and the result is a hierarchical mess that no one may ever be able to undo. The tragedy is, that every new theory, (including the frail possibility that anyone will believe mine), is another nail in the coffin of a “Grand Unification Theory”. Everything must be adequately proven, and I regard my unique observation to be no different than any other, in that respect. If I am proven wrong, that’s great. Something will have been verified as truth for everyone, including me.
Atmospheres create friction when motion through it occurs, while the vacuum can not. Everything falls (or sinks) within an atmosphere, but nothing falls within an artificial atmosphere inside a rocket ship in the vacuum. Does no one think that there is even a possibility that “different rules” apply between a natural atmosphere, and a closed man-made atmosphere within a vacuum?
Please don’t scoff at the metaphors like the one about the ship “not knowing anything”, and try to appreciate what I meant by that.
To answer your question about, “What role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? “I don’t know exactly how you took that from anything I have said since the beginning. I never said that the air “gives us gravity”, (At least, I don’t think that I ever did.)
I know I said that we brought our gravity within us from the earth when we went into space, and I believe that. Everything in the ship has its imported gravity, so its weight is “hidden”, by reason of the fact that mass is non-scalable in the vacuum. What do you set the scale upon, to weigh anything, when everything floats in the air, including the scale? “Weightless” does not mean that masses suddenly have REALLY “lost” their weight. You just are not able to weigh things that are floating in the air.
I also did say, in the very first message in my theory, “When something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward (pushing) pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.”
Maybe that’s where the impression that formed your question, “What role does the air play in giving us gravity”, came into the picture.
I don’t know any other way (yet) to explain why I believe that things float in the artificial air in the ship.
Thanks for your patience. I used to have a stronger aversion to pleonasm, but constructing theory has forced me to change.
I’m starved for patience for us to agree on anything, as soon as we can. [;D]
fleep
-
This is all very interesting……..Although I am struggling understand everything.
A quick question to help de-fuddle me ref the question of why Saturns Moons Janus and Prometheus don’t collide..
I don’t know the exact orbit details for the moons. Presumably they both have lots of Kinetic energy and are travelling at a fair velocity around the planet. Because there is no friction in the vacuum of space there is nothing much to reduce their velocity. They are not at escape velocity but they do have sufficient velocity to prevent them being pulled into the planet.... so they are held in orbit. This system is also held in orbit around the sun in a similar way so everything must be pretty well balanced. On that basis could I assume the forces between the moons are also balanced within the system so they cant be easily drawn together. Only if the balance changes/reaches a tipping point. I suppose they must be loosing velocity...just very very very slowly. If they did get drawn together would it mean their relative velocities would need to change.
-
Hi;
Did I say "Prometheus"? Sorry. It's Janus and "Epimetheus".
Please see http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=210
It will explain it well, although I don't agree that the planets do not "repel" each other.
fleep
-
I dont think we or Astro Cornell disagree on this point then. :-)
-
Ok. Fortified by agreeing on something…. and a glass of wine I would like to see if I can understand and find common ground on you atmospheric theory.
Weightlessness becomes a pointless term. It describes a situation about as well as happiness describes the physical state of your prefrontal cortex. We need a new term. Would low gravity environment (LGE) and ultra low gravity environment (ULGE) be acceptable. If your ship was stationary in deep space it would be in an ULGE. Everything would still have its own gravity but the values would be so low that any effects would be negligible. I agree if you have got mass you wont have zero G..just ultra low G. How does all that sound?
I am less convinced by your atmosphere/gravity argument but would this Earth based experiment help prove anything:-
Take a couple of bomb shaped cylindrical housings designed to drop nose cone first but not spin. In both the payload bays you have ½ kg aluminium blocks suspended just above the sealed nose cone. One of the bomb payload bays is a sealed vacuum (A), the other is open to atmosphere (B). The design of B is cunning so the block wont be effected by wind and induced air pressures as the bomb drops.
You release both bombs at 50,000 feet and simultaneously the
½ kg blocks inside are released.
If you are right I expect both bombs would accelerate at a uniform rate. In Bomb B the block would accelerate at the same rate but in bomb A the block would appear to float up inside the casing as the bomb accelerates. How does that sound?
-
Hi B.G.;
Ok. Fortified by agreeing on something, I would like to find common ground on your atmospheric theory.
Tell me exactly what “something” you are agreeing on (with me) please. Is it that I said “I don't agree (with Cornell), that the planets do not "repel" each other? (I believe they are repelling each other, since I believe that gravity does not “attract” anything. Only covalence (or magnetism) can do that. If not, what did you mean?
Also, I see now that Cornell said, “Gravity makes things go faster as they fall”. I don’t agree with them on that either. In the atmosphere down here, stuff falls at 32 FPS/Sec. (Ignoring “feathers” and friction and air resistance on wide/light objects that affect the speed rate standard fall rate.) If a bolt fell off a plane, it should follow the standard pretty closely I would say. I contend that the bolt’s velocity increases because most of the Earth’s atmosphere is close to the Earth. The atmosphere has weight, so as the object falls the atmospheric weight gets continuously heavier above it, increasing the rush of the object towards the ground. As the object falls, it creates an “air void” behind it, like a moving race car tails the car in front of it to get the “free suction”. The falling bolt is the “lead car”, and the following air filling the void is continually getting heavier as the bolt nears the ground, so it’s acting like “continuously more weight” on the falling bolt. The air filling the void is like the “bow-shock” from the second car. It’s “rush-packing” the void with air, giving the lead car back (some of) the velocity that air-drag steals from it.
(In space) Weightlessness becomes a pointless term. We need a new term. Would low gravity environment (LGE) and ultra low gravity environment (ULGE) be acceptable? If your ship was stationary in deep space it would be in an ULGE. Everything would still have its own gravity but the values would be so low that any effects would be negligible. I agree if you have got mass you wont have zero G..just ultra low G. How does all that sound?
Nope. Vacuum means “emptiness”. If gravity is in matter, and there is no (homogeneous) gravity in nothingness, then the term “vacuum” says it all. There can of course be gravity in any bodies that are in that nothingness. The only thing that is homogeneous in the vacuum, and indeed through the whole universe”, is negative pressure, which the (international) Supernova Legacy Team of astrophysicists absolutely confirmed in November 2005. (Hence, no LGE or ULGE).
I am less convinced by your atmosphere/gravity argument but would this Earth based experiment help prove anything:-
Sorry. I don’t get this. Don’t re-explain it please, unless my explanation up above in this message doesn’t solve your question. If it doesn’t, you’ll have to explain better, like “how are the blocks “suspended”, and what does “released” mean? Are the blocks falling out of the bombs? Did the nose cones come off? How is (B) “open” to the atmosphere? Which one; the atmosphere inside behind the nose cone, or the outside natural atmosphere?
Remember please. Re-explain only if you must.
Thanks
fleep
-
Fleep - I'm thinking hard about what you say but I'm still stuck:
The atmosphere has weight, so as the object falls the atmospheric weight gets continuously heavier above it, increasing the rush of the object towards the ground
If this is true then:
(1) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a vacuum e.g. in an evacuated tube or on the moon?
(2) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a sealed air-filled tueb - because from Pascal's law the force on them is equalised?
Batroost
-
What do you set the scale upon, to weigh anything, when everything floats in the air, including the scale?
This is a really good fundamental question. If you believ, as Einstien did, in teh equivalence of intertial and gravitational mass then then way to 'weigh' something in a weightless environment is simply to apply a force and see how much the object accelerates. Of course what you are measuring is 'mass' - but this is what most people mean when they say 'weight'.
Batroost
-
Sorry, just spotted something else:
I also did say, in the very first message in my theory, “When something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward (pushing) pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.”
But experiment doesn't support this does it? Sorry to repeat a point, but go back to our discussion on Everest. The air pressure is much less at the top of Everest - there is far less atmosphere above you - but you weight (i.e. acceleration due to gravity) has only reduced by less than 1/3 of one percent. Similarly, the difference in weight from the Poles to the Equator (>0.5%) can't be explained by air pressure as it's possible to measure this value at teh same air pressure. And Air pressure at the surface of the earth changes by +/-10% with no meausreable change in acceleration due to gravity.
How can atmopsheric pressure be responsible for the apparent acceleration due to gravity when it is independent of changes in air pressure?
-
And there's more...
If the ship could stop falling and remain motionless in the vacuum by firing a powerful set of retro-engines, do you suppose that everybody would crash down to the floor? Not a chance.
No. The ship, and everything in it, would fall (accelerate) directly to Earth. But the occupants would still feel 'weightless' until the friction with the Earth's atmosphere applied a decelerating (upwards) force. The occupants then found that they were apparently being pushed down into their seats. This is excatly what was reported by the Apollo returnees. But this doesn't support your theory because the deceleration (or 'weight') felt by the astronauts was much greater than their 'weight' at the surface even though they were still in a sealed vessel, and they were high up in the atmosphere.
-
And here's another thought...
Not all rocket paths are orbital. For example, the early Mercury flights were sub-orbital. One thing they all had in common though was that the occupants in the ship experienced weightlessness as soon as the engines were shut-off. This was regardless of the height within or above the atmopshere that was achieved.
Without exception these sub-orbital flights came back... even those that flew above the atmposhere.
I'm happy that all of these flights fit fine within conventional ideas of mechanics and gravity - how do they fit in with your theory?
-
Sorry...
mass is non-scalable in the vacuum
Don't understand this. The concept of a scalable mass is strange to me. A mass is a mass is a mass unless you do something physical to add or remove that mass (or add/remove a very great deal of energy).
Dark Energry/Negative Pressure - but this is only one explanation and as many sources point-out (e.g. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/7 (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/7)) the difference between observation and theory here could be 120 order of magnitude! IF negative pressure is real then the effect is going to be so small on any scale with which we are familiar to be completely invisible.
-
Where you been, Chum?
(1) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a vacuum e.g. in an evacuated tube or on the moon?
Why wouldn’t it accelerate? Things falling in the vacuum of space travel super-fast because there is no friction, wind resistance or anything. If there was a tall tree on the moon, and you dropped an object from the top of it, it would accelerate immediately and continuously through the vacuum until it hit the moon, would it not? There is only a “skin” of atmosphere there.
Look at http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-204895
(2) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a sealed air-filled tube - because from Pascal's law the force on them is equalised?
I believe it would be because you are exerting a pressure on the air that is being pressed down as the object falls to the bottom. There has to be even a slight area around the falling object for the increasingly-compressing air to get forced upward, or the object would get stuck in the tube, so as it falls, the air rushes upwards around the object, leaving a void behind and above the falling object that sucks air downward from the falling object’s motion, just like the race car analogy. Does that sound right?
fleep
-
Hi Batroost;
Boy, you're wordy, so I guess I have to be, too.
If you believe, as Einstein did, in the equivalence of intertial and gravitational mass then the way to 'weigh' something in a weightless environment is simply to apply a force and see how much the object accelerates. Of course what you are measuring is 'mass' - but this is what most people mean when they say 'weight'.
But as you know, my theory has no belief that gravity accelerates anything, as gravity is a property of matter. Gravity imparts weight to a mass (volume), and it just falls because it has to. (I hope I didn’t misunderstand why you made the first point, but it doesn’t change my theory. If there’s a way to accurately wheigh something out there, good. I just wasn’t aware of it.)
If most people mean mass when they say “weight”, (maybe including me, sometimes), we are not using the (Oxford) dictionary meaning – “body of matter”, etc. Since a body of matter takes up a volume of space, I would accept the word “volume” here. So if I’m trying to scale the weight of a “volume” in space, my position stands.
I also did say, in the very first message in my theory, “When something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward (pushing) pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.”
Air pressure at the surface of the earth changes by +/-10% with no measurable change in acceleration due to gravity.
How can atmospheric pressure be responsible for the apparent acceleration due to gravity when it is independent of changes in air pressure?
Does your own question not make you wonder?
If the world was absolutely round, instead of bulging at the equator, and if the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere were all of uniform circumference around the planet at specific altitudes that never changed, it would all be much simpler, but they are not. The height of the troposphere for example, varies from the equator to the poles. At the equator it’s about 11-12 miles high, at 50°N and 50°S it’s 5½ miles and at the poles just under four miles high. The Troposphere is where we live, and where the atmosphere is the densest.
Acceleration due to “gravity” as it’s called, (which I call, “due to overhead pressure”), is “the same” at sea level around the world. That’s called 1G at sea level. Masses fall at 32 FPS/Sec. from “up in the atmosphere”, down to sea level at a speed of “1G”. Drop it off a high bridge, or from a plane, and it’s still the same maximum speed, and the reason is that the total atmosphere has a total weight of 14.7 lbs.per square inch, on every square inch, at sea level, anywhere around the planet. The vertical column of air pressure above a falling object of any surface area that is dropping straight down, weighs 14.7 per square inch of area at sea level, so the area of the falling object is under the influence of however much atmospheric weight is above it as it begins to fall, increasing above it until it hits sea level, when the area on top of that falling object is the entire 14.7 PSI that normally “rests” upon the area of a size that matches the area of the falling object.
What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter where it fell from. The rules work the same because the planetary rules of physics governing falling objects have to be able to accommodate every possibility. Big area objects and lightweight objects can “fall victim: to factors like wind resistance that “bend the rules” but if those 2 objects, (such as a wide sheet of steel plate and a feather both fell off a rocket ship, they would fall through the vacuum at exactly the same speed, because there is absolutely nothing there to differentiate between their weight, their volume, their area, or their gravity.
It is therefore logical, that as objects fall from the vacuum into our atmosphere, the “transition rules’ must be of such a nature that they can accommodate anything “coming in”. The total vacuum must have specific absolute rules, and the total atmosphere must have specific absolute rules. The “transition phase” between them has to be a workable set of “transitory rules” that “make sense” in any variation of circumstances. It is the responsibility of science to program the “transitory” tables that allow a computer to plot its way through any circumstance. ‘”Patchwork math is not, and never has been the answer”.
No. The ship, and everything in it, would fall (accelerate) directly to Earth. But the occupants would still feel 'weightless' until the friction with the Earth's atmosphere applied a decelerating (upwards) force. The occupants then found that they were apparently being pushed down into their seats. This is exactly what was reported by the Apollo returnees. But this doesn't support your theory because the deceleration (or 'weight') felt by the astronauts was much greater than their 'weight' at the surface even though they were still in a sealed vessel, and they were high up in the atmosphere.
You’re saying the same thing as me. I said, “IF the ship could “do that””.
Of course it would fall back into the atmosphere. And yes, it would happen exactly as the Apollo returnees said it did. (They just left the vacuum and “gradually plowed into” molecules of air, so the molecules would make a slow cushion and they would plunge into their seats, thus increasing their “apparent weight”.) Note that the “decelerating (upwards) force was on the ship, and not on the people, so the people pushed downwards as a 3rd Law reaction. The fact that they were still in a “sealed vessel” is redundant.
Not all rocket paths are orbital. For example, the early Mercury flights were sub-orbital. One thing they all had in common though was that the occupants in the ship experienced weightlessness as soon as the engines were shut-off. This was regardless of the height within or above the atmosphere that was achieved.
Call it sub-orbital, or anything you like. The ship had to be in at least the “fairly-pure“ vacuum for the people to leave the floor. The ship could not sustain an atmosphere for very long if there was ANY atmospheric weight above them. You made the implication that I’m wrong, so (if you don’t mind), please check how long they were in orbit. I don’t know how this could be compared to anything else, but I’ll bet they weren’t up for long.
Don't understand this. The concept of a scalable mass is strange to me. A mass is a mass is a mass unless you do something physical to add or remove that mass (or add/remove a very great deal of energy).
Please go back to the top of this answer, where we covered “mass, weight, and volume”.
Dark Energry/Negative Pressure - but this is only one explanation and as many sources point-out (e.g. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/7) the difference between observation and theory here could be 120 order of magnitude! IF negative pressure is real then the effect is going to be so small on any scale with which we are familiar to be completely invisible.
Hey! They are still trying to figure out exactly what N.P is, but I’m going with Einstein’s Cosmolgical Constant as did the introductory press article in Nov 2005, about the discovery of N.P. The scale will be small, because NP is a universal “platform” and obviously works at the subatomic level. I’m sticking with what they gave us to work with, not what everybody has not yet figured out about something that nobody can see or measure.
Thanks for your patience.
fleep
-
Acceleration due to “gravity” as it’s called, (which I call, “due to overhead pressure”), is “the same” at sea level around the world. That’s called 1G at sea level.
No it isn't - that's precisely the point I'm making when I contrast the acceleartion due to gravity at the Poles with the Equator. Both of the values I've given you are measured at Sea Level. Your 32 fps/s value is only an average value. Gravity is NOT a constant (look it up!) at Sea Level; nor of course is 14.7 psi anywhere near a constant value either. The difference is that the first varience is spatial, the second chronlogical.
The ship had to be in at least the “fairly-pure“ vacuum for the people to leave the floor.
No. You get exactly the same effect in any freefalling expermient e.g. the German freefall tower experiments a few years ago. Obviously these experiments are short (limited by the height of the Tower) but any of these experiments disprove immediately that there is any conection between between weightlessness and vacuum.
The vertical column of air pressure above a falling object of any surface area that is dropping straight down, weighs 14.7 per square inch of area at sea level, so the area of the falling object is under the influence of however much atmospheric weight is above it as it begins to fall, increasing above it until it hits sea level, when the area on top of that falling object is the entire 14.7 PSI that normally “rests” upon the area of a size that matches the area of the falling object.
Another thought experiment: Take a long clear plastic tube up a monutian. At various places stop, hold the tube vertically and tiem how long it takes something small and dense to fall from one end of the tube to the other. Now repeat the experiment at the same locations but with the top and bottom of the tube capped. Would you expect any difference in teh result? No of course not. But you've already quoted Pascal's law for a sealed vessel (which your tube has now become) as meaning that the pressure exerted on anything within the tube is omni-directional. So the falling of teh obejct clearly has nothing to do with air pressure. (If you're feeling keen you can repeat the experiment after evacuating the tube - the object will fal a little faster...).
Here's another thought - and I think this might be significant? What's the pressure gradient going-up through the atmosphere. I don't know but I'd hazard a guess it doesn't ever exceed 1 bar/100 km or about 1Pa/metre of altitude. So the net difference in Air Pressure between my feet and my head is less than 2 Pa or ~ 0.000147 psi. The area of my head/feet are roughly the same (don't go there!) let's say...20cm x 20cm = 0.04 m2. This means that the net force on me from the pressure difference in atmospeheric height will be of the order of 0.08N, imparting an acceleration of about 0.001 m/s2, or roughly 1/10000 of a g. This is the acceleration that I'd feel due to the weight of the atmopshere both above and below me. Ah. But hold on. That pressure is higher below me than above me, so this is an Upwards acceleration - it's going to slow me down! Of course this is all nonsense because in real freefall the effects of air resistance/drag will quickly dominate but it does illustrate why we don't all feel as if we are walking around with (14.7 psi x area) on our heads!
But as you know, my theory has no belief that gravity accelerates anything, as gravity is a property of matter. Gravity imparts weight to a mass (volume), and it just falls because it has to.
Just spotted this one... Perhaps this is where I've been mis-understanding some of what you are saying. This quote is pretty much along the lines of General Relativety i.e. Gravity is not 'action at a distance' (as Newton described it), but is a symptom of distortions in space/time brought about by teh presence of mass. A good thumbnail descripton of a geodesic path in space-time might well be that the object is following a 'natural path' rather than the obejct is being accelerated by a force.
Have fun,
Batroost
-
Recent experimental observation of a famous physicist on a plane indicates that freefall leads to zero gravity well inside the earth's atmosphere.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687492.ece
Accurate measurements of mass are done in vacuum chambers to remove the effect of air bouancy.
http://publications.npl.co.uk/npl_web/pdf/cmam88.pdf
Even without any air thimgs still have weight.
-
Hi Batroost;
I've been on a road trip.
Acceleration due to “gravity” as it’s called, (which I call, “due to overhead pressure”), is “the same” at sea level around the world. That’s called 1G at sea level.
You said “No it isn't – etc.
When I speak of these things being “the same” globally, I HAVE TO BE speaking in terms of the scientifically accepted averages, of course. The atmosphere is “a living thing”, and there must be averages created for general use. Science has done this, and that’s what I must use. I am creating a theory that differs from those “generally accepted”. I am arguing different effects that might produce different mathematics that derive from the pressure and properties’ “activities”. I can ONLY work with known averages inside which my theory must “perform”. The “new math”, if any had to be created if my theory was found “plausible”, would likely be different from the commonly accepted. I MUST use averages, and I can not accept the typical math tied to the old theories to compute within MY theory. This general principle works for the practice of my theorizing, and is common across many facets of my theorizing, because “their math” might not be correct if some element in my theory works differently than “theirs”. I am OBLIGATED (by my theoretical variations) to do things this way.
You get exactly the same effect in any freefalling experiment e.g. the German freefall tower experiments a few years ago. Obviously these experiments are short (limited by the height of the Tower) but any of these experiments disprove immediately that there is any connection between weightlessness and vacuum.
No. You probably get the results you target for when you work near ground level. Again, you’re comparing experiments performed in the troposphere (ground level) range, with things I’m trying to theorize about, at the upper extremes of our atmosphere, which I have simply ascribed as a place where “transition rules” must be occurring. Again, I am OBLIGATED (by my theoretical variations) to do things this way.
But you've already quoted Pascal's law for a sealed vessel as meaning that the pressure exerted on anything within the tube is omni-directional. So the falling of the object clearly has nothing to do with air pressure.
No. While Pascal’s pressure law does state that a pressure EXERTED in a closed vessel is multi-directional, you can’t extend that to mean that if all you do is cap off the two ends of a tube that it will now contain an (exerting) pressure that is any stronger than the atmospheric pressure that exists outside the tube. All you did was put a tube of glass around an existing volume of atmospheric air. You didn’t claim to have “packed in any extra air” that’s “trying to escape”. Effectively, free air in the closed-ended tube has the same interior “pressure” as a double-open-ended tube held in your other hand.
Here's another thought – (etc.) Of course this is all nonsense because in real freefall the effects of air resistance/drag will quickly dominate but it does illustrate why we don't all feel as if we are walking around with (14.7 psi x area) on our heads!
No “guessing”, unless you want to promote it as your own theory. I’m theorizing based on logic about attributes of participating factors. We can’t just go making up numbers. I also thank you for not contending (so far) that the vacuum in my head might be one of the big “pitfalls” of getting my ideas across.
Bye.
fleep
-
Hi to Bored Chemist:
Even without any air thimgs still have weight.
Could I ask you please to go back and read my answer #81752?
Then let's talk.
Thanks
fleep
-
No. While Pascal’s pressure law does state that a pressure EXERTED in a closed vessel is multi-directional, you can’t extend that to mean that if all you do is cap off the two ends of a tube that it will now contain an (exerting) pressure that is any stronger than the atmospheric pressure that exists outside the tube. All you did was put a tube of glass around an existing volume of atmospheric air. You didn’t claim to have “packed in any extra air” that’s “trying to escape”. Effectively, free air in the closed-ended tube has the same interior “pressure” as a double-open-ended tube held in your other hand.
Precisely my point. The fact that the air is enclosed makes no fifference at all to the pressure exerted. So what this proves (reductio ad absurdum) is that whether or not something accelerates in falling has nothing to do with the weight of air above it.
I can ONLY work with known averages i
Not at all. Work from facts. Working from average values rather than from measured values is a classic scientific error. If you can't make your theory fit measurements then why bother calling it a theory?
This general principle works for the practice of my theorizing, and is common across many facets of my theorizing, because “their math” might not be correct if some element in my theory works differently than “theirs”. I am OBLIGATED (by my theoretical variations) to do things this way
So is your contention that spatial variations in gravity (i.e. at different points on teh earth's surface) and chronolgical changes in air pressure (same place, different time) are irrelevent to a theory that links air pressure to the acceleration experienced by a falling body? Suggesting that an new mathematical structure migt be needed to explain something is fine - ask Schrodinger! - but this seems to do the reverse, it is claiming something as an explanation where the simplest of maths - that of comparison and correlation - shows that that it isn't true. This isn't a theory because it ignores observation.
No “guessing”, unless you want to promote it as your own theory. I’m theorizing based on logic about attributes of participating factors. We can’t just go making up numbers
This isn't a guess (estimate would have been a better word to use) nor am I making up numbers - it's what physicists generally refer to as an "order of magnitude calculation". What it clearly shows is that there is no accelerating effect from the atmosphere above you - unless you're prepared to throw away that bit of science relating to gases and pressure and invent something entirely new?
Best wishes,
Batroost
-
"Hi to Bored Chemist:
Quote
Even without any air thimgs still have weight.
Could I ask you please to go back and read my answer #81752?
Then let's talk.
Thanks
fleep"
I did, mainly it talks about spacecraft so far as I can tell it doesn't talk about weighing something in a vacuum chamber. It does talk about sealed containers (like spaceships) full of air in space. It doesn't seem to refer to the fact that if air is the cause of weight and I remove the air how come things still have weight?
If I have missed something please can you clarify it. This is a very simple experiment in principle. A weight on a spring balance in a bell jar would do perfectly well as a model system. If you pull the air out what happens to the weight? I say it falls slightly because there is no longer any air bouying it up. If air pressure is the cause of weight wouldn't it rise as, without air causing the weight, shouldn't the spring contract and pull the weight up?
-
Fleep.
It was probably moved because this is the section where you can argue against established thories like you are. As to what you mean BY all messed up i not sure as the moving process shouldnt remove any content , however if something has gone wrong and some data has been lost we appologise.
-
To Bored Chemist - Re: messg #84761
A weight on a spring balance in a bell jar - If you pull the air out what happens to the weight? I say it falls slightly because there is no longer any air buoying it up. If air pressure is the cause of weight wouldn't it rise as, without air causing the weight, shouldn't the spring contract and pull the weight up?
Sorry. I thought I answered this.
Yes, it will go down, and here is why. If you make a vacuum, there is no air to affect the naked activity of the bell jar’s interior, of course. The weight is on a spring scale, but now it’s in a vacuum, so there is no air, so there can be no air pressure inside the jar.
I don’t think I ever said that air pressure affects things in a vacuum, because it can’t. It’s affecting the outside of the bell jar, but not the stuff inside. The weight is imparted by the gravity in the mass that’s on the spring scale, and weight just “falls”, because it IS weight. The result is that if the weight falls as the air is withdrwn, it will go down, not up. A spring is a spring. It will only follow the orders of its tensile properties. The weight is just a "dumbell".
Don’t confuse the bell jar (on the Earth) scenario, with the Shuttle and its contained artificial atmosphere sitting in the vacuum. Stuff falls everywhere if not surrounded by a "globally uncertain" inward pressure as it is in the Shuttle. On Earth, it has to fall because it has weight, even if it’s in a vacuum on Earth. The only ways (I know of) to make it float on the Earth, are to completely surround an object/weight, with either a constant air stream pressure that surrounds it and exceeds the strength of its weight, or if it’s magnetically suspended (e.g. North-North poles), from enough directions to
Make it “float” in the air.
Thanks.
fleep
-
Moderator – (Side note) – Why don’t you put in a field where users can show the messg number to which they are replying? Would this also make it easier to group arguments with different individuals that are corresponding between each other? Let us all know please in a separate message. Thanks.
Now – My reply to Batroost #84491
The fact that the air is enclosed makes no difference at all to the pressure exerted. So what this proves is that whether or not something accelerates in falling has nothing to do with the weight of air above it.
It proves nothing of the sort. Say a double open-ended glass tube of 1 square inch inside area goes from sea level all the way up to the top of the atmosphere. The atmosphere in the tube is the same as the atmosphere outside it. It weighs 14.7 PSI (average) at sea level in both cases. A ball bearing falls at the same rate in both.
Now we have another tube of the same size and height beside it, except both ends are capped. It’s not a pressurized tube, just full of atmosphere like outside it.
The weight of the atmosphere in both tubes starts off at the top at the atmosphere, and all the air molecules that are “piled” in each tube total 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at average), at the bottom of both tubes. If it started falling from a height where it was almost totally vacuum, the ball bearing would first begin to slow down when it hit “thickening” molecular resistance. Somewhere in that falling process, it has to reach 32 ft./sec. Then it falls faster, until it hits 32 fps/sec. You’re the one who pointed out that the shuttle first gets “cushioned” as it comes in out of space, and I agree. That’s what’s happening with these ball bearings. If the atmosphere “cushions”, it is causing an effect. When that entry effect is finished, (because the atmosphere’s getting thicker and heavier through each cubic inch that the bearings fall), then the atmosphere’s "second" effect takes over.
That downwardly increasing accumulation of molecular weight “cubes” is assigning more and more weight above the progress of the falling object. What happens after the first cushion? The atmospheric “rules of falling weights” takes over – i.e. – 32 fps – 32 fps/sec., (and on down).
Working from average values rather than from measured values is a classic scientific error. If you can't make your theory fit measurements then why bother calling it a theory?
What do you suppose the scientists are working with when they do globally dispersed experiments that will produce different results? They have to adjust all readings for comparison. They adjust them to the standard that science itself created. It’s called “Datum”, as you know. I’m not doing anything that they are not doing. I’m using their standard.
So is your contention that spatial variations in gravity (i.e. at different points on the earth's surface) and chronological changes in air pressure (same place, different time) are irrelevant to a theory that links air pressure to the acceleration experienced by a falling body? Suggesting that a new mathematical structure might be needed to explain something is fine - ask Schrodinger! - but this seems to do the reverse, it is claiming something as an explanation where the simplest of maths - that of comparison and correlation - shows that that it isn't true. This isn't a theory because it ignores observation.
My theory does not ignore observation. It is based on the observations that I am explaining.
All right. My theory covers the workings of the planet. If it is correct, it could then be tested using current math methods, and the same measurements would likely result. If I was allowed to pick any single location on the globe, a time, and an altitude from which the object is dropped, what do you suppose science would use to calculate their math, if they didn’t have a “standard average” like 14.7 PSI? Their math uses it as their baseline. Why can’t I?
This isn't a guess (estimate would have been a better word to use) nor am I making up numbers - it's what physicists generally refer to as an "order of magnitude calculation". What it clearly shows is that there is no accelerating effect from the atmosphere above you - unless you're prepared to throw away that bit of science relating to gases and pressure and invent something entirely new?
How does my above explanation affect your point of view on this, or does it (“sort of”) answer it?
Thanks. Sorry for delay.
fleep
-
Fleep: If you want new features you need to talk to the web-monkey (Daveshorts), ideally via the comments and feedback board. Occasionally magic does happen and new features appear, but it does involve Dave having to reverse engineer the forum software and is very unlikely to happen in the next few weeks as he's pretty well snowed under otherwise.
-
Moderator – (Side note) – Why don’t you put in a field where users can show the messg number to which they are replying? Would this also make it easier to group arguments with different individuals that are corresponding between each other? Let us all know please in a separate message. Thanks.
You mean like that above?
You just hit the 'quote' button for the message, and it will copy the message to the reply panel, and you can then write your answer underneath it; or if you wish to intersperse your answer with the message you are quoting, then you can simply copy the quote start and quote end tags to have several quoted sections, and your replies in between.
You will note that the quoted text now has a link above it, and if you click on the link, you will be taken back to the original message that you have quoted from.
-
Moderator – (Side note) – Why don’t you put in a field where users can show the messg number to which they are replying? Would this also make it easier to group arguments with different individuals that are corresponding between each other? Let us all know please in a separate message. Thanks.
You mean like that above?
You just hit the 'quote' button for the message, and it will copy the message to the reply panel, and you can then write your answer underneath it; or if you wish to intersperse your answer with the message you are quoting, then you can simply copy the quote start and quote end tags to have several quoted sections, and your replies in between.
You will note that the quoted text now has a link above it, and if you click on the link, you will be taken back to the original message that you have quoted from.
Thank you. "Nuff said".
fleep
-
I know that the pressure varies day by day to the extent of about 10%
I know that the force of gravity does not.
I also know that I can measure the force of gravity at the equator and I can measure the force of gravity at the poles. If I am prepared to sit around waiting for the natural variation in air pressures then I can measure the force of gravity in different places but at the same air pressure. This force varies in exactly the way I would expect with latitude and altitude.
It does not vary ( at any given location) with air pressure.
How is it possible that something that changes (like air pressure) can be responsible for something that stays the same ( like gravity)
Also how come something that is the same (Air pressure when its some particular measured value like 760mmHg) be responsible for something that varies (like gravity at the poles or the equator)
-
The weight of the atmosphere in both tubes starts off at the top at the atmosphere, and all the air molecules that are “piled” in each tube total 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at average), at the bottom of both tubes
Nope. If a tube is sealed (rigidly) then the atmosphere above the tube does not exert any pressure on the gas within. If this weren't true no-one could survive a trip down to see the Titanic!
That downwardly increasing accumulation of molecular weight “cubes” is assigning more and more weight above the progress of the falling object. What happens after the first cushion? The atmospheric “rules of falling weights” takes over – i.e. – 32 fps – 32 fps/sec., (and on down).
I can't see how you can argue this when you youself have quoted Pascals gas law in your earlier explanations. The point of the tube 'thought-experiment' is that the falling ball bearing inside doesn't know whether it has a 100km column of air above it, or a few centimetres and then a rigid cap. It will fall in exactly the same manner. This is consistent with Pascals law - i.e. the gas inside the tube exerting an equal pressure in all directions - and wholly inconsistent with any idea that the air above the ball is somehow pushing it down/accelerating it.
What do you suppose the scientists are working with when they do globally dispersed experiments that will produce different results? They have to adjust all readings for comparison. They adjust them to the standard that science itself created. It’s called “Datum”, as you know.
This isn't how I was taught to do experiments. Yes, you have to adjust results for datum conditions in order to make meaningful comparisons but this is not the same as only using average values. For example, if I'm interested in the boiling points of different fluids then it makes sense to measure them (with a thermometer) and then adjust separately for measured atmospheric pressure at the time of each experiment. This will give the 'correct' boiling points from which deductions can be made about the relative strengths of binding forces within the liquids. However, if I simply use 'average' air pressure, with no correction, I will get misleading results. Some measurements will be high, some will be low. I will get the wrong answers. Using average values is fine for teaching people principles but it is no way to conduct experiment.
All right. My theory covers the workings of the planet.
But doesn't seem to explain gravity on teh Moon where there is no atmosphere to speak of? Doesn't the non-universality of your explanation bother you (when compared with more conventional explanations)?
If it is correct, it could then be tested using current math methods, and the same measurements would likely result. If I was allowed to pick any single location on the globe, a time, and an altitude from which the object is dropped, what do you suppose science would use to calculate their math, if they didn’t have a “standard average” like 14.7 PSI? Their math uses it as their baseline. Why can’t I?
There is nothing magical about 14.7 psi. I often find practical problems where using it would be a mistake. For example, the Reactor Building where I work is an airtight enclosure of, roughly speaking, 90,000 cubic metres. The air pressure within this building has to be adjusted (by cooling/heating systems) so as to be within a few millibar of atmospeheric pressure outside - which is always changing, so some active control of these systems is required. If we don't do this then we hit practical problems such as if someone opens an airlock door a differential pressure of more than a few millibar would (quite literally) blow the door and them away! I'm not joking here - this happened a few years ago in the States where the operators involved did exactly as you suggest and compared a pressure reading within their Reactor Building with "14.7 psi" rather than with the true (lower) air pressure at the time. When the door crashed open it killed one of them and seriously injured another. Science is no different to real-life here. You don't use an average value to discount observations that don't fit a theory. From measurement, air pressure varies where ethe acceleration due to gravity doesn't and vice versa.
No correlation = no theory.
How does my above explanation affect your point of view on this, or does it (“sort of”) answer it?
No - the more I think about this, the more examples there seem to be that contradict what you suggest.
Sorry,
Best wishes,
Batroost
-
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.
-
The weight of the atmosphere in both tubes starts off at the top at the atmosphere, and all the air molecules that are “piled” in each tube total 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at average), at the bottom of both tubes
Nope. If a tube is sealed (rigidly) then the atmosphere above the tube does not exert any pressure on the gas within. If this weren't true no-one could survive a trip down to see the Titanic!
That downwardly increasing accumulation of molecular weight “cubes” is assigning more and more weight above the progress of the falling object. What happens after the first cushion? The atmospheric “rules of falling weights” takes over – i.e. – 32 fps – 32 fps/sec., (and on down).
I can't see how you can argue this when you youself have quoted Pascals gas law in your earlier explanations. The point of the tube 'thought-experiment' is that the falling ball bearing inside doesn't know whether it has a 100km column of air above it, or a few centimetres and then a rigid cap. It will fall in exactly the same manner. This is consistent with Pascals law - i.e. the gas inside the tube exerting an equal pressure in all directions - and wholly inconsistent with any idea that the air above the ball is somehow pushing it down/accelerating it.
What do you suppose the scientists are working with when they do globally dispersed experiments that will produce different results? They have to adjust all readings for comparison. They adjust them to the standard that science itself created. It’s called “Datum”, as you know.
This isn't how I was taught to do experiments. Yes, you have to adjust results for datum conditions in order to make meaningful comparisons but this is not the same as only using average values. For example, if I'm interested in the boiling points of different fluids then it makes sense to measure them (with a thermometer) and then adjust separately for measured atmospheric pressure at the time of each experiment. This will give the 'correct' boiling points from which deductions can be made about the relative strengths of binding forces within the liquids. However, if I simply use 'average' air pressure, with no correction, I will get misleading results. Some measurements will be high, some will be low. I will get the wrong answers. Using average values is fine for teaching people principles but it is no way to conduct experiment.
All right. My theory covers the workings of the planet.
But doesn't seem to explain gravity on teh Moon where there is no atmosphere to speak of? Doesn't the non-universality of your explanation bother you (when compared with more conventional explanations)?
If it is correct, it could then be tested using current math methods, and the same measurements would likely result. If I was allowed to pick any single location on the globe, a time, and an altitude from which the object is dropped, what do you suppose science would use to calculate their math, if they didn’t have a “standard average” like 14.7 PSI? Their math uses it as their baseline. Why can’t I?
There is nothing magical about 14.7 psi. I often find practical problems where using it would be a mistake. For example, the Reactor Building where I work is an airtight enclosure of, roughly speaking, 90,000 cubic metres. The air pressure within this building has to be adjusted (by cooling/heating systems) so as to be within a few millibar of atmospeheric pressure outside - which is always changing, so some active control of these systems is required. If we don't do this then we hit practical problems such as if someone opens an airlock door a differential pressure of more than a few millibar would (quite literally) blow the door and them away! I'm not joking here - this happened a few years ago in the States where the operators involved did exactly as you suggest and compared a pressure reading within their Reactor Building with "14.7 psi" rather than with the true (lower) air pressure at the time. When the door crashed open it killed one of them and seriously injured another. Science is no different to real-life here. You don't use an average value to discount observations that don't fit a theory. From measurement, air pressure varies where ethe acceleration due to gravity doesn't and vice versa.
No correlation = no theory.
How does my above explanation affect your point of view on this, or does it (“sort of”) answer it?
No - the more I think about this, the more examples there seem to be that contradict what you suggest.
Hi Batroost:
Nope. If a tube is sealed (rigidly) then the atmosphere above the tube does not exert any pressure on the gas within. If this weren't true no-one could survive a trip down to see the Titanic!
Nope, yourself. I said (or meant) that the tube starts off at the “top” of the atmosphere and goes down only to sea level. There is nothing above it that weighs anything, because there’s (virtually) nothing above it. The (non-pressurized) closed tube is full of the weight of the air, which is stratified in the same way as the air outside the closed tube. 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”.
I can't see how you can argue this when you yourself have quoted Pascals gas law in your earlier explanations. The point of the tube 'thought-experiment' is that the falling ball bearing inside doesn't know whether it has a 100km column of air above it, or a few centimetres and then a rigid cap. It will fall in exactly the same manner. This is consistent with Pascals law - i.e. the gas inside the tube exerting an equal pressure in all directions - and wholly inconsistent with any idea that the air above the ball is somehow pushing it down/accelerating it.
What? You’re still thinking that I’m saying that air “pushes” things down? There is no pressure in the tubes that I’m talking about except atmospheric pressure. The bearings are just falling, and the thickening air weight as they fall increases above them as they drop. Remember the “race-car analogy”? Pascal’s law is about pressures that exceed fluid and/or atmospheric pressure.
This isn't how I was taught to do experiments. Yes, you have to adjust results for datum conditions in order to make meaningful comparisons but this is not the same as only using average values. For example, if I'm interested in the boiling points of different fluids then it makes sense to measure them (with a thermometer) and then adjust separately for measured atmospheric pressure at the time of each experiment. This will give the 'correct' boiling points from which deductions can be made about the relative strengths of binding forces within the liquids. However, if I simply use 'average' air pressure, with no correction, I will get misleading results. Some measurements will be high, some will be low. I will get the wrong answers. Using average values is fine for teaching people principles but it is no way to conduct experiment.
Come on, Batroost. Your example is a red herring, and I suspect that you know it. Are you testing me? You’re crossing lines where your analogies are becoming sidetracks.
But it doesn't seem to explain gravity on the Moon where there is no atmosphere to speak of? Doesn't the non-universality of your explanation bother you (when compared with more conventional explanations)?
O.K. I might have said that “My theory covers the workings of the planet”, but as you know, my entire theory also explains what’s going on inside and outside the shuttle. When I said “the planet”, it referred to the content of that specific message. My theory is for the planet, other atmospheres, non-atmospheres, artificial atmospheres, and the vacuums, both contained in natural atmospheres, and out in the void. I can’t repeat this every time we get into a “local” question.
There is nothing magical about 14.7 psi. I often find practical problems where using it would be a mistake. For example, the Reactor Building where I work is an airtight enclosure of, roughly speaking, 90,000 cubic metres. The air pressure within this building has to be adjusted (by cooling/heating systems) so as to be within a few millibar of atmospheric pressure outside - which is always changing, so some active control of these systems is required. If we don't do this then we hit practical problems such as if someone opens an airlock door a differential pressure of more than a few millibar would (quite literally) blow the door and them away! I'm not joking here - this happened a few years ago in the States where the operators involved did exactly as you suggest and compared a pressure reading within their Reactor Building with "14.7 psi" rather than with the true (lower) air pressure at the time. When the door crashed open it killed one of them and seriously injured another. Science is no different to real-life here. You don't use an average value to discount observations that don't fit a theory. From measurement, air pressure varies where the acceleration due to gravity doesn't and vice versa. No correlation = no theory.
You’re really reaching, Sir. My theory is what’s going up against the standard use of Datum’s meaning. No particular standard works for every circumstance, but it does for mine. We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc. That’s it. I can't use any unrelated analogies to propose a different fundamental observation about how things fall.
The more I think about this, the more examples there seem to be that contradict what you suggest.
Well; I guess I’ll just have to keep trying, won’t I? You, Sir, are a tough sell.
Thanks Batroost.
fleep
-
I know that the pressure varies day by day to the extent of about 10%
I know that the force of gravity does not.
I also know that I can measure the force of gravity at the equator and I can measure the force of gravity at the poles. If I am prepared to sit around waiting for the natural variation in air pressures then I can measure the force of gravity in different places but at the same air pressure. This force varies in exactly the way I would expect with latitude and altitude.
It does not vary ( at any given location) with air pressure.
How is it possible that something that changes (like air pressure) can be responsible for something that stays the same ( like gravity)
Also how come something that is the same (Air pressure when its some particular measured value like 760mmHg) be responsible for something that varies (like gravity at the poles or the equator)
Hi Bored Chemist Re: 85701
I (fundamentally) follow Einstein’s view in “General Relativity” that gravitation is not a “force”. If you have followed my theory down, you will know I believe that gravity is what imparts in mass, the “ability” to exhibit weight. Gravity is not a force, and is unable to exert a force outside any atom’s own nucleus. It is not a force in molecular state, mass state, or in anything you want to call the “state”. The “force of gravity”, in my theory, is the influence of the weight of an object. The only things that attract between matter are magnetism and covalence, and even these are selective in their elemental abilities and propensities. I don’t think we would be wrong to say that gravity is weight, but don’t tear off on that tangent with semantic arguments please.
Gravity “stays the same”, as you said it.
You don’t have to sit around anywhere waiting for the “force of gravity” to change. The weight of a mass does not change, (excepting erosion, friction, wear, etc., of course), but different elevations (above sea level for example), around the world will give you different weight readings.
“Air pressure changes”, as you said it.
But the (global) average atmospheric weight at sea level is 14.7 PSI.
(Please now check to confirm that my following simplifications of your two questions above, say exactly what yours said, without using unnecessary example values.)
(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.
(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.
Thanks B.C.
fleep
-
Greetings from Canada:
Fleep here. Re: My ongoing defense about a small part of my entire theory:
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.
I’m happy to get any advice or very pointed questions on what is still unclear. If anyone thinks that they can accept any "part(s)" of my theory as "seemingly logical", could you identify them please? I have no other way to calculate my next directions. The progression of confusion is growing all the time.
Should I purge all this and state the whole theory again, using the things I have been taught by the questions against which I had to defend my explanations?
My apologies are extended to any who are offended by a frankness that boils over from frustration. I’m getting old here.
Many thanks for all participation.
fleep
-
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.
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.
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?
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):
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?
We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc.
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
-
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.
-
(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.
-
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
-
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:
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.
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
-
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
-
Hi Batroost:
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
-
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]
-
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 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
-
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
-
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
-
"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.
-
"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
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf
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.
-
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?
-
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.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
"(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,
thatmadman
"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.
-
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
-
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
-
"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.
-
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
-
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?
-
May I see your calculations please, BC? They will help me to make calculations of my own.
Thanks.
Fleep
-
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
-
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?
-
"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
-
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.
-
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
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/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
-
"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.
-
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
-
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
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/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
-
"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.
-
Hi BC;
Thanks for responding.
Quote from my messg to you:
"Rule 1 – All released objects in open space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.
Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float in the air.
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 , etc.
You can not deny that they are physically suspended in the air in their ship because they contact no walls or floor (without effort.) The “circumstance” of their floating is certainly during free-fall, but the fact is that they will float in the air, and it only happens naturally inside a ship that is in open space, where objects are surrounded by a pressurized atmosphere. (Don’t bring up parabolic simulations. We both know that these have nothing to do with the reality of the content of my rules.) The evidence I am stating is FACT, which, as it’s stated, is indisputable.
The cause, and the reason for the scenario related to that cause are two different things. My Rule 2 sentence is accurate but I will change it for you.
You would not say that they “float” in the vacuum if they were outside the ship, because words have specific meanings. “Float” means: “Rest, drift on surface of liquid; hover before eye or mind, etc. I will use “hover” and “float” to clarify my rule.
Rule 1 says everything in the earth's atmosphere falls. I hold that everything outside it falls too. Your rule 2 reflects the fact that ships are usually in orbit.
That means that everything whether it's in a ship, a vacuum or the atmosphere falls.
That's also the principle of universal gravitation. Everything falls.
Weight is everything. Weight falls. Call it “gravitation” if you like. You know my theory says that weight and gravity are the same thing that go by 2 different names, except you say gravity attracts, and I say it doesn’t. Weight does not attract, unless a weight happens to be a magnet, (and of course, if the poles are opposites.)
By one interpretation of “free-fall”, some might actually surmise that if I drop a paper box with a lead weight in the bottom of it out of an airplane in absolutely still air that the lead weight will float in the air in the box. It will not float or hover in the air, but will have encountered a circumstance where its weight can only be expressed to the bottom of the box, since its weight will be increasing the speed of the fall of a light-weight box, thereby overcoming some of its air resistance. They are both falling, but the circumstance has changed the falling behaviour of the box. If they tip over and the lead falls out, the lead will beat the box to the ground. This is a circumstance-related event, just as is the objects hovering in the shuttle out in space.
The defined circumstance would have to be stated in my rule if the rule had to explain everything. Newton’s 3rd Law doesn’t explain “why”. My rules don’t have to explain why either.
My rules do not express “cause” at all, and they never did. Only my theory expresses what I interpret to be the reason WHY objects hover in the ship. That remains a part of my theory.
Re Rule 1 – It must be remembered that an atmospheric mass inside a ship is an “object” too. Yes, it free-falls as an object, as does the atmospheric mass and the objects and people in that mass.
(Not revised): Rule 1 – All released objects in open space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.”
(Revised): Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float or hover in the air.
We can agree to disagree on the actual cause of the hovering, which I contend, as you know, that the atmospheric mass is a “blind pressure”, which is unable to provide directional instructions to exert floating objects against any wall or floor of the ship.
Now. What is your answer to my question about the incongruence between Newton’s 1st Law of Motion, and his Law of gravitation? I already know what they each say and mean. Please tell me what’s wrong with my question.
Thanks
fleep
P.S. - Rather than guess, I'd like to see what would happen if a helium-filled balloon was released inside the shuttle. (It too would be free-falling, inside a mass - the pressurized atmosphere, inside another mass - the ship).
-
Fleep,
Two thoughts:
(1) You seem to be ignoring the full expression of Newton's first Law i.e. An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
The bit I've highlighted in Red is the bit that shows why there is no contradiction between this law and that for Gravity (at least as Newton understood it), as the gravitational attraction provides the unbalanced force necessary to accelerate the two bodies towards each other.
(2) Your Rule 2 bothers me because it seems incomplete. Imagine this, sealed spacecraft, floating spanner etc... At this stage either explanation - yours or Newton's explains what we see. Now the engine comes on. What do we see? To an observer inside the spacecraft there has been no change in air pressure - still the same in every direction BUT the spanner now seems to be accelerating towards the back! It is not floating it is visibly falling....!
Has the back wall of the spacecraft somehow become attractive to the spanner? Are we misinterpreting our measurements of air pressure? The answer is of course 'No' to both questions. The spanner only appeared to be floating because it was moving with the ship. As soon as the ship begins to accelerate the spanner will seem (to an inside observer) to have developed an opposite acceleration.
In physical terms, before the engines are turned-on both the ship and the spanner and any observer within the ship were in 'free-fall' i.e. there was no accelerating force acting on one without also acting equally on the other. This would be true if the ship were in deep space or if it was in a tight orbit around a planet.
Where our explanations diverge is what happens as the ship is braked by the atmosphere. It has to slow down by (as you say) >10,000 miles/hour and this requires the ship to experience an 'unbalanced force' - hardly surprising things start to 'fall' straight away within the ship. Once the ship has fully decelerated to terminal velocity within the atmosphere - with or without the aid of parachutes; this just affects how high the terminal velocity is - we conclude (in Newtonian terms) that the gravitational accelerating force on the ship is balanced by the decelerating force of atmospheric drag. At this point the net force on the ship is zero and it will fall at constant velocity. BUT the net force on anything dropped inside the ship is not zero - as it doesn't experience the atmospheric drag from outside - and it will accelerate towards the ground (which may or may not be the floor of the ship!) at the usual rate.
This is a self-consistent model of events. There are no discontinuities or contradictions between Newton's laws in any of this. A different model is not excluded but neither does it appear to be necessary?
Of course the model can be refined by replacing Newton's Laws with their relativistic equivalents, and by tweaking the forces to adjust for altitude but these are only, second-order effects.
Best wishes,
As Always,
Batroost
-
Hi Batroost;
First, an excerpt from Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Theory_of_impetus
"Another profound, perhaps the most well-known, conclusion of the theory of Special Relativity was that energy and mass are not separate things, but are, in fact, interchangeable. This new relationship, however, also carried with it new implications for the concept of inertia. The logical conclusion of Special Relativity was that if mass exhibits the principle of inertia, then inertia must also apply to energy as well. This theory, and subsequent experiments confirming some of its conclusions, have also served to radically expand the definition of inertia in some contexts to apply to a much wider context including energy as well as matter.
You said:
You seem to be ignoring the full expression of Newton's first Law i.e. An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
The bit I've highlighted is the bit that shows why there is no contradiction between this law and that for Gravity (at least as Newton understood it), as the gravitational attraction provides the unbalanced force necessary to accelerate the two bodies towards each other.
There is no “gravitational attraction” at work here. It does not “provide” anything.
You said:
Now the engine comes on. To an observer inside the spacecraft there has been no change in air pressure - still the same in every direction BUT the spanner now seems to be accelerating towards the back! It is not floating it is visibly falling....!
No, it is visibly accelerating from a rest position, because its inertia has been broken. Newton’s 1st Law is at work.
I don’t think I said anywhere that inertia will not be affected in the sealed ship, by the application of an external force. The “appearance of flotation” that is often spoken of is real flotation, in the definitive sense. Are the things that are strapped down only “appearing” to be strapped down? When the engine fires, Newton’s First Law of Motion kicks in. Inertia is “broken”, and the engine’s force acts upon a spanner, or other floating objects, making them accelerate from no matter where they are in the ship.
The ship’s “blind pressure” is also a “brainless pressure”. Law 1 says, “go”, and the object goes in the direction opposite to where the ship is headed when the engine fires. There is no “gravitational attraction” needed to supply an unbalanced force. The ship's air pressure doesn’t know or care. When the engine shuts down, the spanner just resumes its blind, mindless floating. It doesn’t go back to where it was in the air, or stay “attracted” to anything. It “knows no responsibilities”. The atmospheric mass is blindly falling, and so is everything inside it, but these things are truly (and definitively) floating, as an effect of the blind pressure. IF the atmospheric pressure had any effect on anything in the ship, everything would be going ”somewhere”, but no floating thing has a job to do, because the pressure does not assign any “jobs”.
The instant departure from inertia is what foments acceleration of a “resting mass” in what might appear to some, as a Newtonian notion of “acceleration due to attraction”.
The point is this: No “thing” in the ship “knows” that the ship is in free-fall. An object can be said to be “at rest”, even while floating in the air. If it’s moving a bit, it’s probably due to light air currents created by internal systems and people moving around it that call up Newton’s 1st Law. Nothing gets “attracted” to anything; (any magnetism is excepted of course).
External forces on the ship will create internal effects over which the pressurized atmosphere has no say. It only matters whether the ship is in space, or in the atmosphere of the Earth. The same internal pressure that had one effect out in the vacuum, is now subject to a completely different effect when it enters Earth’s atmosphere. The ship is falling through a vacuum, and then it is falling through an atmosphere. The ship’s internal effects “environment” has changed, but the pressure doesn’t know that either. The vacuum and our atmosphere both “know their roles.”
The mere fact that there are air currents inside a sealed ship is evidence that the atmospheric pressure is, (as a force), a “benign factor”. If it had directed applications, (as in hydraulic cylinders), it might not be available everywhere in the ship when a breath was taken. The preparation of a global and constant air supply would be an incredibly difficult system to construct in a ship, if the pressure worked under assigned directions, as in hydraulics.
All of the exceptions that are taken to my theory about “blind pressure” are accredited to observation by onlookers. What “seems to be”, really is happening in the air, inside the shuttle. “Falling” is simply not a reason why the interior events are different when falling in a vacuum, from falling through an atmosphere. Falling is simply falling, and only this difference between circumstances can set and exhibit the variations.
That’s the explanation that funds my theory.
Best wishes, and thanks for getting back into the discussion. (You had me worried.)
fleep
-
Fleep,
Sorry I've read through that three times and can't say I'm any closer to understanding what you are getting at here.
There is no “gravitational attraction” at work here. It does not “provide” anything.
To be cheeky - what it provides is an explanation.... [;D]
More seriously, the point about the spanner is that, by virtue of inertia, it only appears to accelerate backwards. It's inertia/momentum or whatever else you want to call it is unaffected because it has had no accelerating force acting upon it. It is the ship, and the observer that are accelerating forwards BUT to the observer the effect is indistinguishable from a gravitational acceleration (a manifestation of the principle of equivalence).
The trick here, once you realise that what you are seeing is simply a consequence of relative frames of reference is to realise that this is sufficient on its own to explain everything that is observed both in free-fall and in re-entry to the Earth's . Every example that you, I and BC have quoted fit the same model.
So, please (sorry!) can you try again to explain where you think Newton's First Law of Motion is inconsistent with his law of gravitation?
mass exhibits the principle of inertia, then inertia must also apply to energy as well.
Incidentally, and this is very much an aside, whilst energy and mass have an equivalency in relativity, the scaling factor (c2) is so very large that these effects aren't seen in everyday mechanics. For example, calculate the energy you'd have to add to a bucket of water to make it measureably heavier (i.e. increase its inertia):- for 5 kg of water (at 20 degrees), to add 1g would need enough energy to boil the water into steam 10 million times over! So I don't see that this is going to be relevent unless I've missed something?
Best wishes,
Batroost
-
I daresay this has been addressed already but how are you getting around the "feather in a bell jar" experiment which shows that not only does (say) a ball bearing fall in a vacuum created by pumping the air out, but moreover a feather in a vacuum falls just as fast because it is no longer slowed by air resistance?
Also, fleep.
You've clearly given a lot of thought to this, have you reached a point at which you can lay out your theory quantitatively (in the form of equations?) I find that text is a very unsatisfactory medium for discussing the finer details of this sort of theory and this thread is getting very long winded and seems to the outside observer to be going in circles... If you expressed it (semi-)quantitatively it would be much easier to figure out where it does and doesn't match up with observed data.
-
Hi Batroost, BC and Rosy:
In messg 95887, Batroost said: This is a self-consistent model of events. A different model is not excluded but neither does it appear to be necessary?
In 95997, Batroost said: Every example that you, I and BC have quoted fit the same model.
I suddenly realized this morning, that what is complicating this entire long debate, is my own continual insistence that my interpretations effectively challenge or try to disprove conventional theory. Batroost has smartened me up again, (above), as he did when he steered me towards constructing the “falling in atmosphere model” that I posted in my messg 86419. He accepted that and even complimented it. So, I had one model in place, which is effectively, a stand-alone way to observe an atmosphere-based event.
Now. Batroost says above that “A different model is not excluded, etc.” If I restart, I would present each model to consider on its own merits, keeping them each separate for discussion until I bring them all together for relative considerations. They will be logical constructions, and some may help me to refine them as they appear each in turn. When they seem to be "accepted (as models)", I will go on to each next model.
Whether actually necessary or not, the most recent is (I believe) my logical expression of how a functionally different display of pressure in a closed vessel in the vacuum of space still fits and confirms the tenets of (only) Pascal’s Law. That’s all it really does, and I mistakenly tackled the big guns, trying to say that it proved anything else wrong, when maybe all it really explains is an opinion of why things (gulp) “appear” to float in the air when inside a sealed ship in space.
I should be trying to identify only the fact that this pressure difference exists within Pascal, and that is, the “blind pressure” factor. It would then be presented as simply another model, which is open to interpretation, and makes no demands.
I have been overly ambitious, I suspect, in calling all of this exercise a “theory”. A theory demands mathematical evidence in most cases, and at my age, I am unequipped to learn the many things I must come to know. My life expertise is in other fields, and I'm retired. My models must stand alone as “Unique Observations” that fall outside the demanding parameters of theory. They are there, in that new circumstance, only for thought stimulation. I feel better already.
Perhaps, (and only perhaps), when my models are all completed and submitted together for their relational considerations, someone else can take them to a place I have always suspected that they will collectively lead, but it won’t be me that does it. Perhaps that will never even happen, but that’s my new mission anyway.
I am hereby asking the moderators for their opinion(s).
Do you wish me to cease and desist and go elsewhere, or should I restart in “Non-Life Sciences”? My new title might be something like “New Atmosphere and Vacuum Models.
Thank you to all who have participated and followed this long string.
fleep
-
Hi; Fleep here. I'm back.
In the absence of any replies, I've decided to resume right here, where I left off.
Comparison – Earth Atmosphere Versus Shuttle Atmosphere
Purpose:
This thesis has been rewritten to redefine apparent reasons for the behaviour and its cause and effect on an object that is falling through space while “floating” in the captive atmosphere of the shuttle. The engines fire and the object “seems” to begin to “move” in relationship to its “floating position” in the ship, before engines were engaged.
First, we must restate Model 1, which explains what is happening when an object is dropped from rest speed at the Karman Line. (Model 1 has been previously well received).
Purpose of Model 1 – Defining objects’ fall behaviour through Earth’s 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).
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.
It is 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 drops.
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/columns 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”.
(End of Model 1 explanation).
Now, we return to the “Purpose” mentioned at the opening of this thesis:
- to restate what I believe to be the cause and effect of an object that is falling through space while appearing to be “floating” in the captive atmosphere of the shuttle. The engines are fired, and the object “seems” to begin to “move” in relationship to its “floating position” in the ship, before the engines were fired.
The situation is this:
Our 1 cubic inch, 1 pound weight is “at rest” appearing to be in a “hovering position” in the globally equalized pressure (under Pascal’ Law) atmosphere of the shuttle, which, for simplicity sake, we will say is 14.7 PSI, as is our own atmosphere on Earth. Comparatively speaking, we could call its "hovering" position, “the Karman rest-point”, simply in order to keep the analogy in line with the performance of the Model 1 explanation above. The ship in this model is travelling in an orbit that is “horizontal” to Earth’s atmosphere below it.
When the shuttle’s rear rocket fires, the “hovering” block’s inertial state “appears” to be “broken”. (Newton’s 1st Law.) An “action” appears to commence.
Our block will appear to begin to move from the "Karman rest-point", toward and in the same direction as the engine’s thrust. (i.e.- the trailing end of thrust direction.)
Its’ seemingly apparent “fall” speed and direction will be relational to that of the ship’s line of travel.(Because of the globally equalized pressure in the ship, the “columns” referred to in Model 1 do not exist in the ship.)
The cube appears to fall in a straight line towards the thrust engine, passing and displacing one cubic inch of air at a time. (In reality, the entire volume of contained air is bypassing the cube that remains in position, at rest in the air.)
Each succeeding cubic inch of “apparent fall” recalls its air volume to re-fill the void behind it.
As the whole air volume passes the cube, the original atmospheric weight/pressure behind the cube is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal pressure as the cube appears to “drop”.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the apparent “drop”) to the trailing inner surface of the ship.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving no increasing atmospheric burden behind as it appears to “fall”, because all the ship’s internal atmospheric pressure is globally equal.
At the completion of the air volume’s passing, the cube hits the rear surface.
The atmospheric pressure in the ship is unchanged anywhere. It is still globally equal.
===================================================
What appears to be missing in this example? The ship has certainly begun to move forward by the force exerted by the rocket’s engine, but inside the shuttle, without the actual expenditure of any “force” directly against it, the object has suddenly appeared to have begun to “move” towards the rear of the ship. There is no doubt that it is now located in a different place inside the ship, but if no force has been expended to foment a change of inertia, then nothing has “happened” to the block. No “action” has occurred, and no “equal and opposite reaction” has been made compulsory until the moving ship itself strikes the cube.
Is it logical to say that the imposition of a globally equal interior pressure (under Pascal’s Law), has placed this scenario in a “theatre” in which Newton’s Laws of Motion have been “altered”, or even been nullified?
Does it perhaps now seem logical, that objects which appear to be floating in the air in a rocket ship are actually “suspended”, because the global equality of pressure provides no directionally explicit “orders” for objects to be “assigned” a place to rest? Unlike a hydraulic system, the “blind” atmospheric pressure, simply “cannot know” that loose things normally reside on a surface. This seems quite possible and even likely, in the absence or alteration of the Laws of Motion.
Why is this even of any importance? Who might care that the former explanation that “objects only appear to float because they are falling at the same rate as the ship”, is not a genuine reason for this unique anomaly?
Is it not enough to realize that possibly a single new truth can be added to human knowledge? If something occurs in only one specific circumstance, science deserves something better than mediocrity, and this is nothing but my tiny effort to bring a new possibility into the light.
Thanks for your patience.
Fleep
-
Hey! Batroost and B.C. What's the matter with you two? Don't you want to debate anymore?
What if I elaborate a bit....
Here's another short explanation of what the long foregoing message means:
Inside the closed cabin of the shuttle, the atmosphere is equalized in a global way at something slightly less than 14.7 PSI. Pascal says that pressure is equal on all surfaces here, including on the objects that are “floating”. If the ship was equalized at precisely 14.7 PSI, it would be exactly the same pressure as at our sea level, so “floating” objects moving through a shuttle’s atmosphere are already effectively at, (or close to), “sea level pressure” when they begin to (appear to) “move” as the engine is fired. That specific pressure of 14.7 PSI (on the Earth), is exactly adjacent to either the surface of water, or of solid matter. In the shuttle, there is no opportunity or demand for floating things to “fall” in any direction, because the surrounding pressure of those objects has already been “satisfied” by global pressure equalization. Objects “floating” in the shuttle’s atmosphere, are already (effectively), sitting on a “surrounding surface” (of air pressure). The only thing that moves is the ship, and the floating object just stays there in a fall rate that is exactly the same as the rate of the falling ship.
Because of the exterior acceleration of the ship, the object is simply bypassed by the ship’s atmosphere as the ship’s length goes by it. The object does not move.
I just would like anybody to tell me what’s not logical about this interpretation of what’s happening.
Any takers?
Thanks
fleep