1

That CAN'T be true! / where does Colin's sailing boat, energy and momentum come from ?

« on: 07/08/2021 18:29:52 »

Hi all,

So Colin has been sailing recently, So not only is he good at physics he will also have been experiencing natures laws and forces first hand.

Would anyone like to venture an answer.
 

2

Just Chat! / did someone at wembley read the naked scientists?

« on: 11/07/2021 00:48:59 »

Hi all,
So a disclaimer I do not own a green laser pen !!
does anyone from the TNS own one or is it just a coincidence ? given it was posted the day before the match

As the police are investigating  👮
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15527408/england-denmark-schmeichel-laser-kane-penalty/


« Reply #28 on: 06/07/2021 00:23:20 »

given Halcs and Alans counter arguments with GR and Newtons laws of motion.
But first I think we need to do away with the dropping of light in the gravity field as being a separate point, and isn't really the point under consideration, as the light beam suggested can be treated as straight enough to discern whats accelerating.   

Given we could very easily set the ball and feather to drop say 10 metres and the points observed of the stream light passing across the vacuum the deviation from straight/horizontal would be negligible, I.E across the length of the football pitch at Wembley   105 metres it would drop 6.017 x10^-13 metres./quote]

Anyway maybe the value of drop maybe helpful to trace the position of the real culprit, and full marks to Kasper Schmeichel for his sportsmanship.

3

New Theories / Is it publishing ?

« on: 06/10/2014 18:08:26 »

HI all, on this part of the forum it states : Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here... is this equivalent to publishing ?

4

New Theories / Newton made an error and Einstein copied it

« on: 16/04/2010 22:54:13 »

Newton did not allow for the variation in the amount of cancellation due to the vector nature of gravitational attraction when at different distances in space from a mass.

When showing that a spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center
see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Quote from the link
However, since there is partial cancellation due to the vector nature of the force, the leftover component.

So you can not just take the value of gravitational attraction at earths surface and apply inverse square law out in to space.

And for the same reasons you can not derive an accurate value for the weight of the earth from the Michell/Cavendish experiment or a accurate value for the gravitational constant which Einstein included in his calculations

Now i understand that these are absolute fundamentals of physics so it should not be to difficult for any one with relevant training to show the error in my assertions.

for more information see
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=28473.0

The above post has gone unchallenged for quite a while, maybe you didn't notice some one was taking a hammer and chisel to the foundations. []

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a scale for gravity versus the speed of time in General Relativity ?

« on: 16/04/2010 19:44:27 »

     
In a earlier post it was said that a value of one of earths gravity force was equal to a slowing of time of 60 micro seconds a day.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=29156.25

does that mean that the strength of gravity force at a value of two of earths gravity fields is equal to a slowing of time of 120 micro seconds a day and so on.

And if so is this a S I value linked to one of earths gravitational attraction at sea level like one A U.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / what does general relativity say about gravitational action/reaction pairing?

« on: 29/03/2010 21:43:53 »

what does general relativity say about gravitational action/reaction pairing.

for example in newtons physics if you accelerate a cricket ball upwards in the gravitational field it is thought that the mass of the ball plus its acceleration gives a total force that the ball pulls on the earth and the earth pulls back with a equal and opposite force.

In G R gravity is not a attractive force so what does it postulate in this type of scenario ?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / how should i time my eggs

« on: 08/03/2010 21:22:21 »

 It is  said that a atomic clock runs faster at altitude proving time runs faster the weaker the gravity field,

 so if you placed an atomic clock at the centre of the earth and ignoring the gravitational effects of the sun and the moon, it would run considerably faster because it would seem to the atomic clock that the mass of the earth did not exist

 now if you placed a hour glass egg timer along side it, it would not run at all so doing the total opposite as regards our ways of measuring the passage of time.

 So which method should i use to cook my eggs when visiting the centre of the earth


[straight lines in curved space time or force field].

8

New Theories / Is this the source of the pioneer anomaly

« on: 31/01/2010 17:47:42 »

, 'newton proved mathematically that a uniform spherical shell of matter exerts a gravitational force on a particle located outside the shell as if all the shells mass were concentrated at its centre.And also the theorem can also be applied to a situation in which a particle is located inside such a shell,to show the following, a uniform shell of matter exerts no net gravitational force on a particle inside it.

Now i know that this was a mathematical result of newtons showing that all the vector sums added up to prove this theory and i think this theory holds while on the surface of the shell and inside a shell but not when a particle is any great distance from the surface,

i think the variation gravitational acceleration that has being measured shows that it is diminishing faster than the inverse square law predicts while in reasonably close proximity of earth and being detected to be greater than inverse square law predicts when further away at much greater distances.

I think these anomalies are simply because the earths gravitational force that we experience on a daily basis put at roughly 9.81 metres per second squared is just what newton said, a net vector result of every particles attraction in the direction that it is being measured.

 which leads me to conclude that earths gravitational pull on a particle at earths surface is pulling at an approximate average angle of a 90 degree cone which would give a total force equal to close to 14 metres per second squared but with a net vector sum resulting force of 9.81 metres per second squared.

 so when leaving earths surface in reasonably close proximity, the inverse square of the distance changes from the main source of the force out of proportion to the change in the average vector angle.And when at greater distances the vector angle becomes less so allowing the total force a straighter pull on a particle so manifesting in a greater attraction force than predicted in the inverse square law.

 so looking at the Cavendish /Michell experiment and applying the same concerns it would also call into question some of the conclusions drawn.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does temperature affect the value of the gravitational constant, G?

« on: 23/01/2010 15:53:42 »

Has any experiment's ever been done along the lines of the Mitchell/Cavendish to see if the temperature of the mass has any effect on the value of big G