Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: fleep on 25/09/2007 16:54:37

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 25/09/2007 16:54:37
Hi;

All “actions” in Nature are required to comply with Newton’s 3rd Law. “For every action, there is (mandatorily), an equal and opposite reaction”. This applies throughout the universe, including the structure of every atom. An atom is the smallest “balanced particle” of matter, because the actions of electrons and their covalent trading must fit the 3rd Law.

If we consider that the Atomic Number is the number of protons that are contained in each atom of an element, and we also note that this number is the same as the number of electrons in that element, then it might appear that the element is “permanently balanced”, as under Newton’s 3rd Law, but this simply cannot be so

Material things are composed of a myriad of compounds, which when the electron “trading” allowances are considered, then those elements have “given away or exceeded” any seeming appearance of a 3rd Law balance.

If no element ever changed from its pure form into anything else, then the “atomic balance” argument might be valid, but this is the real world, and we have to consider all of the altered states of matter that can occur, which must also balance, or Newton’s 3rd Law can not be correct at the atomic level.

Incidentally, a neutron is said to be 1836 times, and a proton is said to be 1840 times as heavy as an electron. (Could both actually be only one of those two weights, implying another “balance in the atom”?) The closeness of the two seems suspiciously near to a balanced number possibility. Are the numbers even close enough as stated to be called “balanced” at the nano-scale?


Now I must ask: If weight alone makes every molecular body fall, either in space, or in any atmosphere, then where is the need for another force that we call “gravity”? If it does exist as a force, it would seem to be an atomically external effect only, which is said to “attract” other matter.

Now, why would a force called gravity even be required? Matter is electrical in nature, and the measurement between point charges under Coulomb’s Law produces a result that equates to Newtonian math. Protons, which are positive, are made of 3 quarks, but neutrons have no quarks. They are negative, so the protons and neutrons need not balance, but something must balance every atom to meet the 3rd Law.

So if an electron(s) is taken from any element, and that element can no longer balance, what else could there be, except something like (analogically) a universal “atmosphere” of Negative Pressure” that compensates for all chemical transitions, so that they too may balance, when they change?

Our universe is filled with such a Negative pressure, as discovered in 2005, by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the direction of Dr. Ray Carlberg of the University of Toronto. It appears to be the “operating platform” upon which the “Motherboard” of atomic structure can exist.


This theory is speculative in the extreme of course, because it tries to expose the effects attributed to “gravitation” as a “serious mistake”, that can be almost (or perhaps identically) explained by the mathematics of Coulomb’s Law, once we accept that the universe runs on electricity, and not something called “gravity”, about 100 years before Coulomb made his law available to science. We do not even understand all the reasons why the Van Allen Belts exist. They have to be “control panels”, as is a magnetosphere. Perhaps they do things such as controlling our tides, an often suspiciously inconsistent happening attributed to “the moon’s gravity”, which is alleged to be only 1/6 as strong as our own. “Ring currents” in open space appear to be a more believable cause, electromagnetically connecting the point charges of the two bodies.

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡

Scientific advancement is fundamentally an effort to improve our understanding, and virtually every early discovery has been changed, corrected, or debunked over the ages. Our modern technology is well equipped to investigate other possibilities, and I seriously contend, that it is time we made the effort to prove that even genius can be wrong. Albert Einstein called his Cosmological Constant theory, “the greatest blunder of his life”, but with the discovery of Negative Pressure, he seems to have been proven to be correct.

Respectfully, I must say, that all humans each theorize based upon our observations, our understanding, and our always incomplete absolute knowledge. All of the above is only a theory, constructed from the components with which I have seemingly been cursed to dream.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2007 20:34:30
"Now I must ask: If weight alone makes every molecular body fall, either in space, or in any atmosphere, then where is the need for another force that we call “gravity”? If it does exist as a force, it would seem to be an atomically external effect only, which is said to “attract” other matter.
"
Since weight is, by definition, the force of gravity on an object, I think this question has problems.
"Now, why would a force called gravity even be required? Matter is electrical in nature, and the measurement between point charges under Coulomb’s Law produces a result that equates to Newtonian math."
It's true that Coulomb's law and Newton's law have the same form ie they are both inverse square laws. However most of the time we see objects that are electically neutral overall. To take a simple example HCl is a gas which has a distinct dipole to it, the Cl is slightly negatively charged and the H is positively charged to the same degree.
However if you back off more than a few times the size of the molecule then what you see is not the + charge or the - charge, but the overall effect. Since the charges are the same size (but oposite sign) and roughly as far away as each other they parly cancel out.
The overall effect is that dipole interactions fall off as the inverse cube of the distance.
Only gravity, which is always an attractive force (so far as we know) can have an effect at large distances.

"Perhaps they do things such as controlling our tides, an often suspiciously inconsistent happening attributed to “the moon’s gravity”, which is alleged to be only 1/6 as strong as our own."
What is inconsistent, nevermind suspiciously so, about the tides being driven by the gravity of the moon and sun?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 27/09/2007 15:36:21
Hi BC;

You're quoted in red here:

“Since weight is, by definition, the force of gravity on an object, I think this question has problems.”

That is hardly a proper statement. If gravity is (perhaps) not now, and never was, a real thing, then a definition of weight that was created/derived from a (perhaps) non-existent component (such as “gravity”), is meaningless. "Gravity" is just a word that did not exist before Newton conceived it, to explain his theory.

“Only gravity, which is always an attractive force (so far as we know) can have an effect at large distances.”

That is not true. Negative pressure is universal for example. That covers every distance in the universe. Ring currents (and electromagnetism) working within that NP are known to be of enormous reach and of various sizes. Examples such as you have given about HCL cannot be examined from the basis of “gravity” (which might be a non-existent premise only), and be expected to yield anything but a skewed answer. The “inverse square law” did not work everywhere, so Einstein had to come up with relativity, (another theory), to help explain gravity, which he was obviously also convinced was “fundamentally” the place to start looking for answers.

Therein might be the first problem. Science needed a “place to start”, even before we knew anything about NP or even Coulomb, so they took off from there, and now are building a hierarchical mountain of patchwork evidence on a theory that many do not trust, but believe there was nowhere else to start. How many gravity theories now exist, not even counting the amateur ones like mine? Dozens? More than that?

What is "inconsistent, never mind suspiciously so, about the tides being driven by the gravity of the moon and sun?"
First you have to understand what I’m seeing.

Let’s say that the Neap (low monthly) Tide is being produced. Convention says that Neap Tide happens when the sun, moon, and Earth form a right angle, and the gravitational pull of the sun partially offsets that of the moon.

Picture the sun as a big ball on the left of a drawing, the (small ball) Earth on the right, and the (tiny ball) moon directly above the Earth on the page.) The low tides are in a direct line from the sun on the left and right sides of the ball representing the Earth. The high tides are “piled” on the top and bottom of the Earth in the picture.

What I see, is the unimpeded solar wind bombarding our magnetosphere. The sun, as a point charge,  electromagnetically connects by ring current to the Earth’s point charge, resulting in a like-pole repulsion. Our outward-facing atmosphere is an electrical mass of atoms that all become repulsed toward the exposed Earth, and the electrical burden on the atmosphere becomes simply a huge pressure that pushes the tides to the “top and bottom” of the Earth, (in the picture.) The magnetosphere is known to encircle and bypass our planet, curling back behind the planet, thus creating the same effect on the dark side as on the side that openly faces the sun, so the ocean waters on the sides and the back side of the Earth, also experiences a low tide level. That’s how Neap Tide is formed, without “gravity”. It’s done by electrical pressure.

Now let’s say that the Spring (high monthly) Tide is being produced. Our new picture has the sun on the left, the moon in the center between then sun and the Earth, and the Earth on the right. They are in a horizontal line across the picture. The moon is centrally “blocking” much of the solar wind from hitting our magnetosphere with full force, and much of the solar wind’s effect is deflected towards the top and bottom of the Earth in the picture. The unblocked (by the moon) portions of our magnetosphere at the top and the bottom of the Earth are catching what remains of the solar wind, since most of it is bombarding the moon.

The waters on the moon-shaded area of the Earth are at high tide, because the ring current now between only the moon and the Earth is much less substantial than the huge and powerful ring current that exists between the sun and the Earth’s magnetosphere, when the moon is not in the sun’s pathway to the Earth. The deflected full ring current coming from the sun is now working at an angle that passes the circle of that Earth-blocking moon, and pushes down our atmosphere only on the top and the bottom of the Earth, making the expanded tides “hide” behind the blocking moon.
The description of the electrical events might not be explained perfectly here, but I see the electrical circuitry at work here, as far more plausible than a weak imaginary force called “gravity” that was invented on the basis of primitive suppositions.

Now, what is inconsistent, never mind suspiciously so, about the tides being driven by the gravity of the moon and sun?

To answer your question about "what is “inconsistent” about the sun and moon’s gravity “pulling” our tides, you would have to study the disparities from the “normal” tidal patterns, in historical records like the US Coast Guard. They can all be found on line for many years gone by, and I have studied them in great detail over a few years, and they raise too many questions to be explained by “gravitational effects”.

If the sun’s “gravity” is reliably powerful enough to “pull” our tides at its 93 million mile distance, without the considerations of what would have to be the “comparatively miniscule” pattern-altering effects of Earth’s weather, then what terrible coastal disasters could be caused in bad weather when the (mere) 1/6th Earth gravity moon is blocking the sun’s gravity behind itself?

Search and have a look at the complexity of “tidal anomalies”, and even something close to home, like: http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac48/toolowfo.htm

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2007 20:21:42
Whatever gravity may be or may not be, weight is still defined as the force of gravity so, if you say that gravity doesn't exist, you cannot use the word weight (at the very least, you need to come up with an alternative definition.

"That is not true. Negative pressure is universal for example. "
OK 2 things, First I meant that of the things that had been mentioned only gravity was always atractive.
Second what's negative pressure?

"What I see, is the unimpeded solar wind bombarding our magnetosphere. The sun, as a point charge,  electromagnetically connects by ring current to the Earth’s point charge, resulting in a like-pole repulsion. Our outward-facing atmosphere is an electrical mass of atoms that all become repulsed toward the exposed Earth, and the electrical burden on the atmosphere becomes simply a huge pressure that pushes the tides to the “top and bottom” of the Earth, (in the picture.) The magnetosphere is known to encircle and bypass our planet, curling back behind the planet, thus creating the same effect on the dark side as on the side that openly faces the sun, so the ocean waters on the sides and the back side of the Earth, also experiences a low tide level. That’s how Neap Tide is formed, without “gravity”. It’s done by electrical pressure."
You may well see that, but nobody else does.
Electrical pressure would have effects that were proportional to area and different for different materials. Not least the effect on insulators would be different from that on conductors.
We have satelites made of metal and meteors made of various materials. They are all affected to an extent that depends on their mass and nothing else.

"I have studied them in great detail over a few years, and they raise too many questions to be explained by “gravitational effects”."

I presume this is one
"If the sun’s “gravity” is reliably powerful enough to “pull” our tides at its 93 million mile distance, without the considerations of what would have to be the “comparatively miniscule” pattern-altering effects of Earth’s weather, then what terrible coastal disasters could be caused in bad weather when the (mere) 1/6th Earth gravity moon is blocking the sun’s gravity behind itself?"
The question's meaningless. Gravity isn't blocked by anything. It's always attractive.

And I'm sorry to say it but this
"The description of the electrical events might not be explained perfectly here, but I see the electrical circuitry at work here, as far more plausible than a weak imaginary force called “gravity” that was invented on the basis of primitive suppositions." is absurd.

Drop a hammer on your foot and tell me that the force is imagniary. Float unaided up stairs and I might beleive you.

Gravity very clearly exists.

While some measurements have shown that the universe isn't quite as simple as we had thought  the idea that gravity (with it's inverse square law) could be replaced by the dipole dipole interaction (inverse cube) or even worse the induced dipole induced dipole interaction that would need to be used for macroscopic uncharged conductive items like planets and stars (inverse 6th power IIRC) is plain daft. Someone would have noticed.
(actually, strictly no-one would. Any law other than inverse square gives unstable orbits. It's essentially impossible for life to evolve without 1/r^2 so there would be no observers to notice.
Oh, BTW, this "Therein might be the first problem. Science needed a “place to start”, even before we knew anything about NP or even Coulomb, " is also bollokcs. Coulomb's law was known about since about 1780. Einstein would have been aware of it.



Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 28/09/2007 15:58:48
Hi BC;

I'm in red print and you're black print.

Whatever gravity may be or may not be, weight is still defined as the force of gravity so, if you say that gravity doesn't exist, you cannot use the word weight (at the very least, you need to come up with an alternative definition.

Of course I can use the word “weight”. The weight of a mass is the total of all the atomic weights in every atom of the object. Weight has been defined as the “force of gravity” only because Newton invented/used that word to name his (non-existent) “attractive force”. The definition of the word ‘weight”, by association to a theoretical “force”, has also become (only) a theoretical definition.

“ Negative pressure is universal...." OK 2 things, First I meant that of the things that had been mentioned only gravity was always atractive.
Second what's negative pressure?

"What I see, is the unimpeded solar wind bombarding our magnetosphere. The sun, as a point charge,  electromagnetically connects by ring current to the Earth’s point charge, resulting in a like-pole repulsion. Our outward-facing atmosphere is an electrical mass of atoms that all become repulsed toward the exposed Earth, and the electrical burden on the atmosphere becomes simply a huge pressure that pushes the tides to the “top and bottom” of the Earth, (in the picture.) The magnetosphere is known to encircle and bypass our planet, curling back behind the planet, thus creating the same effect on the dark side as on the side that openly faces the sun, so the ocean waters on the sides and the back side of the Earth, also experiences a low tide level. That’s how Neap Tide is formed, without “gravity”. It’s done by electrical pressure."

You may well see that, but nobody else does.

 Apparently that’s true, but that doesn’t make my theory of “no gravity” any less a unique thought than Newton having one, whether he was right or not. (Don’t even suggest that I am comparing myself to his genius. That would be stupid of me, and of anyone else who made such a claim, but he too was only human, and everybody makes a big mistake from time to time. (Einstein readily admitted his Cosmological Constant to be a “big blunder”, but he turned out to be right It’s called “Negative Pressure.”)

You also asked what “Negative Pressure” is. Well, it was the Supernova Legacy Team that named their own discovery. A “negative pressure” is obviously the opposite of a positive pressure, such as matter has to be. Just as there is matter and there is anti-matter, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, etc., so the opposite of a positive pressure is a negative pressure, and NP has been confirmed as  being something that fills the entire universe, (as Einstein predicted, then recanted when the Hubbell found that the universe is expanding). NP is now seen by some as the “operating platform” for the “motherboard’ on which all transitions/exchanges of force, (regardless of type), can be capable of achieving a balanced state as required by Newton’s 3rd Law.

Electrical pressure would have effects that were proportional to area and different for different materials. Not least the effect on insulators would be different from that on conductors.
We have satelites made of metal and meteors made of various materials. They are all affected to an extent that depends on their mass and nothing else.

So what’s your point? Satellites and meteors are not “affected” by anything but being in a vacuum. They are free to fall without impediment because they are not contained by a ring current or by any other behaviour-controlling force.

"I have studied tides in great detail over a few years, and they raise too many questions to be explained by “gravitational effects”."

I presume this is one

"If the sun’s “gravity” is reliably powerful enough to “pull” our tides at its 93 million mile distance, without the considerations of what would have to be the “comparatively miniscule” pattern-altering effects of Earth’s weather, then what terrible coastal disasters could be caused in bad weather when the (mere) 1/6th Earth gravity moon is blocking the sun’s gravity behind itself?"

The question's meaningless. Gravity isn't blocked by anything. It's always attractive.

I thought only neutrinos pass right through anything in their path. Are you saying that a pulling gravity from the sun is pulling the tides “right through” the moon? If gravity really was a pulling force, the sun would only pull the moon towards itself when the moon got in the way. That would not increase the pull on the tides, but decrease it, would it not? I say the moon is a barrier at the Neap Tide of my "picture" example, to all but neutrinos.

Sorry, but your answer to my "sun's gravity" question is meaningless within the claims of my theory. You know that I have to relent and use the word “gravity” in my correspondence so I can pose a situation question to you, based on your belief in “gravity”. I try to make concessions to your possibilities. You seem to make none, and seem to merely try to ridicule the conclusions of all I have studied.

You said: "The description of the electrical events might not be explained perfectly here, but I see the electrical circuitry at work here, as far more plausible than a weak imaginary force called “gravity” that was invented on the basis of primitive suppositions." is absurd.

Drop a hammer on your foot and tell me that the force is imagniary. Float unaided up stairs and I might beleive you.

And I'm sorry to say it too, but a falling object is not the result of a “force” at all. A weight falls because that’s what weight must do, whether in an atmosphere, or in a vacuum. Why would a mass need any “help”, simply to fall? If Newton had never put a name to what he thought he had “discovered”, do you suppose that a hammer or anything else would not be able to fall? That is ridiculous, of course, but so is your assumption that I could float up the stairs if there was no gravity. My weight would still hold me down, unless I was in the vacuum of space in a pressurized rocketship.

Gravity very clearly exists.
 
That’s baloney, in my theory! Why do we need gravity? Whether things fall, or perform their physical work, or their chemical reactions, these things will happen without the need for some weird “attractive force” whose tailored math bears an amazing resemblance to the plausible and identifiable workings of electrical circuitry.
 Even “planetary accretion” over time is implausible. The roundness of planets and moons and the like speaks volumes against the supposition that a central “attractive force” would ever bring materials made of every element, into “global shapes”, particularly on the broad scale. Only exterior compaction could accomplish that feat. (Look at black holes as a more likely beginning for “round body compaction”. It also helps to explain molten cores, misshapen bodies, atmospheric formation, and where all the “lost” antimatter from the Big Bang can be found.)

While some measurements have shown that the universe isn't quite as simple as we had thought  the idea that gravity (with it's inverse square law) could be replaced by the dipole dipole interaction (inverse cube) or even worse the induced dipole induced dipole interaction that would need to be used for macroscopic uncharged conductive items like planets and stars (inverse 6th power IIRC) is plain daft. Someone would have noticed.

Why? Everybody believed Newton, so even today they still aren’t even looking for something other than what he claimed. I may not be the one here that is “daft”. I contend that anyone who is completely close-minded to other THEORETICAL possibilities may be one of the daft.
When some are faced with a new and radical belief that has not been proven completely implausible, they should be open-minded enough to examine it without intellectual prejudice.

Any law other than inverse square gives unstable orbits.

If that is always true, then maybe now it’s time to re-examine that observation, experimenting with electrical circuitry as the actual cause of things ascribed to something called “gravity”.

Oh, BTW, this "Therein might be the first problem. Science needed a “place to start”, even before we knew anything about NP or even Coulomb, "is also bullocks. Coulomb's law was known about since about 1780. Einstein would have been aware of it.

You missed my meaning. What I meant by “a place to start” was the time immediately following 1687 and the publication of the Principia. Of course Einstein would have known and considered Coulomb’s Law, but he wasn’t questioning Newton, because like I said, Coulomb had made an observation 100 years after Newton, that seemed to be of “no gravity-related significance”. “The theory of gravitation had become “trusted”, because it seemed to answer many (but not all) questions, so Coulomb was effectively ignored then, and is still “kept on a back burner”, even until today. Things in Nature that did then, and do not now not comply with Newton’s “gravity” are each provided with tailor-made math “solutions”. If gravity was so “foolproof”, we would not have so many alternate gravity theories today. Even the numbers of people that believe gravity “pushes” are legion. I too used to believe that.
 
Even when I long ago pointed out the significant antics of Janus and Epimetheus to you, and asked why their incredible proximity didn’t cause them to collide, you only said, “Just wait”. That was not even close to being an objective examination of my theory. Your mind seems to be fixed and closed to anything but an ancient tradition that has been taken as “gospel”, while forgetting that gravity remains a theory to this day.

PERHAPS the ongoing confusion all exists because there just is no such thing as “gravity”. (ONLY “PERHAPS”, because mine, like any other theory, is ONLY a THEORY.)

I’m truthfully sorry to be so blunt, but I honestly believe that some of my explanations open up some reasonably logical alternatives, and deserve better examination. They are based on things not yet well compared to traditional acceptance. I don’t care if I’m wrong. I already can see how it’s all explained under “Newton’s umbrella”. Just tell me why my logic is impossible, not what Newton’s gravity allegedly “proves”.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2007 21:38:29
Your theory doesn't seem to explain anything usefully; gravity does.
How, for example, would you explain Cavendish's experiment?

"Of course I can use the word “weight”. The weight of a mass is the total of all the atomic weights in every atom of the object. "
Weight is a force; mass isn't so you cannot add masses together to get weight.
If you add the masses of the constituent atoms of an object you get the mass of the object. If you multiply that by the local g you get the weight.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 01/10/2007 14:34:48
Hi BC;

You're in black. I'm in red.

How, for example, would you explain Cavendish's experiment?

Why would I want to? How can science in 1873 take a perfectly sensible 1798 experiment aimed at determining the density, (weight for its size), of the Earth, alone, and couple it with Newton’s THEORY, and then call it a “universal constant”? Just because the lead ball weights innocently used by Cavendish came from a weighing system that supposes that weight is related to a theoretical force called “gravity”, does not mean that any of the subsequent suppositions took us in any proper directions. What happened was, that by basing the result on a theory, the “universal constant” also became a theory.
 
When I said: "Of course I can use the word weight. The GENUINE "weight" (of a mass/body of matter,) is the total of all the atomic weights in every atom of the mass. Weight has been defined as the “force of gravity” only because Newton invented/used that word "gravity" to name his (non-existent) “attractive force”. The definition of the word ‘weight”, by association to a theoretical “force”, has also become (only) a theoretical definition. Maybe the word for “weight” should be “mass”, alone.

You said: "Weight is a force; mass isn't, so you cannot add masses together to get weight. If you add the masses of the constituent atoms of an object you get the mass of the object. If you multiply that by the local g you get the weight."

Sure. You get the “weight” from that current procedure, but only because you believe that there is a force such as gravitation. I do not, as you know. (The word “mass”, states how much matter (in one agglomeration), that there is in an object.) You can add the total “masses” (using the word to replace “weight”), of ore bodies together, and get the total agglomeration of their masses, (which is their “weight).

If we had once assumed that the atomic weights of the elements were all correctly calculated without using Gravitation to supplement their genuine “bare material weights”, then we could actually say that the weight of a mass is the sum of all of the atomic weights in that mass. Why should we supplement real numbers with those imposed by a fictional “force”? All math formulations constructed beyond this very basic ideology would be skewed if a theoretical “force” was used to supplement their true “weights”, i.e. the sum of their true masses. If we then took the Gravity-supplemented “weights” and used them as a “universal constant” to determine the “weights” of any other spatial bodies, they would all be wrong too. I believe that’s what happened, and that all of our answers would be technically wrong today, but that’s only if we ignore Coulomb’s inverse square results that closely match the “Newton thing”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
 
“When considering forces of fundamental particles, the gravitational force can appear extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still 1 meter apart is approximately 10-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — which is even greater than the ratio between the mass of a human and the mass of the Solar System.”

Sounds to me like electromagnetism is a more likely universal “operating” force than something called “gravity”, which simply seems to screw up the progression of “real science”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant – “Measurement of the gravitational constant

“The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 1798 — 71 years after Newton's death — by Henry Cavendish (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by Rev. geologist John Michell. Blah, blah...).
However, it is worth mentioning that the aim of Cavendish was not to measure the gravitational constant but rather to measure the mass and density relative to water of the Earth through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction.

The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original experiment of Cavendish. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational” (OR ANY OTHER) “ influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to measure it indirectly. A recent review (Gillies, 1997) shows that published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Oh, BTW - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

"It is not unusual to find books that state erroneously that Cavendish himself determined the gravitational constant (G), and this mistake has been pointed out by several authors. In actuality, Cavendish's only goal was to measure the density of the Earth; he called it 'weighing the world'. The method Cavendish used to calculate the Earth's density from his results caused G to 'drop out' of his calculations, a practice going back to the work of Newton a hundred years earlier. (Even newton didn't trust his own theory). The gravitational constant doesn't appear anywhere in Cavendish's paper, and there is no indication that he regarded it as a goal of his experiment. One of the first references to G is in 1873, 75 years after Cavendish's work.
 
In Cavendish's time, G did not have the importance among scientists that it has today; it was simply proportionality constant in Newton's law. The purpose of measuring the force of gravity was instead to determine the Earth's density. This was a much-desired quantity in 18th-century astronomy, since once the Earth's density was known, the densities*** of the Moon, Sun, and the other planets could be found from it."

***In physics, density is mass m per unit* of volume V, or, how heavy something is compared to its size. e.g = in kilograms, (SI). grams (g), tonnes, pounds, ounces, long and short tons, atomic mass units, etc.

So. What would happen if there really is no such thing as gravity? Obviously, we cannot know exactly what percentage of each of the 100 or so elements forms a part of the great density (Earth) and its atmosphere, and so we could not simply total their mass weights. All we could do I guess, is to estimate those percentages and maybe then we could compare it to the answer that “gravity’s weight calculation” says that the total is. Maybe there’s another way.

If we use Coulomb’s math, then guess what? I think we get an inverse square answer that’s pretty close to what “gravity” is alleged to produce as an answer, after all.  Is that a coincidence, or what? And it doesn’t even need Big G to get there.

Thank you for input BC.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: BenV on 01/10/2007 15:51:26
With regards dropping a hammer on your foot - I wouldn't recommend it, it hurts.  But if I understand your hypothesis correctly (which I don't think I do), then surely a negatively charged hammer would hit your foot in a different way to a positively charged hammer, no? If the attractive force is electrical, then this would be so, but if the attractive force was gravitational, then the hammer would hit your foot equally hard both  times.

Also, please stop putting THEORY in capitals, if you are attempting to imply that it's an untested hypothesis, then say that, but a theory is a hypothesis that has been strongly tested and assumed to be correct because of the weight of evidence in it's favour.  Sorry, but misapplication of the word theory, especially in a scientific context, is a pet hate of mine.

Oh, and please stop redefining wieght to suit you.  Weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object, so if you doubt gravity, find a different word.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 01/10/2007 20:17:48
Hi Ben;

Please stop putting THEORY in capitals, if you are attempting to imply that it's an untested hypothesis, then say that, but a theory is a hypothesis that has been strongly tested and assumed to be correct because of the weight of evidence in it's favour.  Sorry, but misapplication of the word theory, especially in a scientific context, is a pet hate of mine.

Okay. I don't want to trigger pet "hates", but you should know that the Oxford defines "theory" this way: "a view held; supposition explaining something: the sphere of speculation as distinguished from that of practice. I have to use it, but I won't capitalize it anymore, (assuming I always remember I said this). I'll try to remember to say, "my untested theory".

Oh, and please stop redefining wieght to suit you.  Weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object, so if you doubt gravity, find a different word.

Suppose I said, (something like), "atomic burden", and had to explain each time what that is meant to imply, that would still bring out all the objections to my the interpreation of "weight" in my "untested theory". I think I'll just play that one by ear.

 
With regards to dropping a hammer on your foot - if I understand your hypothesis correctly, then surely a negatively charged hammer would hit your foot in a different way to a positively charged hammer, no? If the attractive force is electrical, then this would be so, but if the attractive force was gravitational, then the hammer would hit your foot equally hard both  times.


Glad you asked me. I don't think I explained the "electricity thing" very well. My untested theory, which is meant to "explain" the effects attributed to "gravity", never did explain that electricity is what is the fundamental force that causes things that are attributed to gravity, but unlike what gravity is supposed to be, it is not a "universal constant" except in its mandatory roles across the universe. In effect, like any other force, it is working only where it has a "job" to do in the universe. There is no electrical force at work between bodies that require no such effect.

I see electricity as being necessary in functions like covalence, electromagnetics, tidal motion, weather, etc. Being a force, that makes more sense to me than does another theoretical thing called a "force" which has no reason to exist, particularly when Coulomb's Law can handle the measurement of effects attributed to "gravity". In other words, electricity is not a universal constant as Negative Pressure has been proven to be. If there's "nothing for electricity to do" for example, in a particular stretch of outer space, then all there is there is absolutely nothing. And that means "no gravity", too.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Mr Andrew on 02/10/2007 02:43:49
"Is gravitation even real?"

Yes.  Gravitation is the attraction observed between two masses.  That's it.  How one explains it may or may not be plausible but it is real as it is a directly observable phenomenon of nature.  Case and Point.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2007 19:58:24
Fleep,
I know perfectly well why Cavendish did his experiment.
What he observed was that the moving test masses he used were attracted to the large fixed masses he used in exactly the way predicted by Newtonian gravity.
I challenge you to explain this particular aspect of reality without using gravity.

BTW the experiment has been repeated many times since so there's no way to say "that was just one observation- it must have been a mistake"
The materials available to him and the time constant of the apparatus were such that any electrical charges would have leaked away fast enough to have had no influence.
The materials he used were not magnetic.

Define "burden" (as you use it) and I will be happy for you to use it as often as you like.(provided that the definition doesn't make it the same as mass)
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/10/2007 11:18:36
Hi;


The pressure's getting to much, and I think I’m getting too old to continue this long debate about whether or not “gravity” really exists. I will reveal right now what I believe Henry Cavendish “discovered” when he set out to “weigh the world”.
 
I don't think that I ever said that there was any electrical influence involved in Cavendish’s experiment, but what I also did not say, is that regardless of the safeguards he built into the torsion bar device, he could not guard it from the influence of our weather changes. When it is noted that the properties of lead and mercury are extremely close, the apparent relevance of the following observation might send some people scrambling to their reference books. I happen to find a lot of my “good old stuff” in my 1878 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

With all due respect to Newton’s other works, I fully believe that Newton’s “gravitation” is merely an imaginary “force” that went awry. I will not attempt to explain why I am making this assumption because the evidence seems almost too obvious to be untrue. What he appears to have constructed is a giant barometer of the aneroid type.
 
I might have missed something, and I could be wrong, so may I ask for comments please?

Thanks for everyone'e input.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2007 19:32:47
"I don't think that I ever said that there was any electrical influence involved in Cavendish’s experiment, but what I also did not say, is that regardless of the safeguards he built into the torsion bar device, he could not guard it from the influence of our weather changes. "
and, as I have said the experiment has been repeated many times since. How come the weather always has the same effect when the one thing that weather is famed for being is variable?
They knew about air pressure,  if this force had depended on the pressure they would probably have noticed it. The problem still remains. Why did the balls move sideways?

Also, what do you mean by "When it is noted that the properties of lead and mercury are extremely close, the apparent relevance of the following observation might send some people scrambling to their reference books."
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: khayden on 06/10/2007 11:21:43
I am in some confusion. I have tried unsuccessfully to research the web for answers for many months now. I tend to get side tracked and lose interest, I have visited forums but they in general are not helpful or out of date. I have just joined the science forum and while my attention level is currently high, I thought I’d contact some members who may have their own ideas or answers to my questions .. I’ve never even posted on a forum before and never contacted anybody in any way with these or any other ideas or thoughts.

I am an engineer by trade and probably of average intelligence, with a short attention span,  a  cave man in science  terms.

 In short while traveling on a plane journey in idle thought, it occurred to me that gravity as I understood it in my relative ignorance, was illogical. This caused further though processes which led me to seek answers to many simple questions. In fact I found that there were no definitive answers. This got my interest and led me to concoct a theory that is probably not original.

May I state right away that I am a firm believer that in general terms it’s usually unwise to try to answer difficult questions with simple answers! But in this instance I believe a simple explanation must be the answer

Basic Theory
We all believe, without question, in our own “natural” individual human self-defense biological mechanism, where anti bodies bombard and attack “intruders” Without conscious thought, we treat these intruders as blemishes or threats on our life’s landscape that must be removed.  The antibodies appear to gang up and produce a self determined, reactive, premeditated and predictable force in order to see off the intruder.
In the same way that human biology automatically react to stimulus it could be that the universe may also react in a similar predictable fashion.  I believe it perfectly logical to assert the same unconscious thought process to the universe as a whole. The defensive “universal force” (UF) is a reactive force created by the universe. Design and composition at this point irrelevant. This could even mean that the Universe is a living thing maybe not with conscious thought but certainly with natural unexplainable reactions.  Most if not all of my own questions now have a coherent answer based on the evidence of our own natural human defense model

UF is:-
1.   completely predictable and logical
2.   limitless power
3.   selectively reactive
4.   controllable in the short term only
5.   utterly relentless. Once the process starts it continues to grow until it achieves its ultimate objective … to obliterate the intruder/blemish completely (or at least as we understand completely).  Nothing can stop it!

Process
Generally the existence of the universe continues on relentlessly until a blemish appears and triggers UF. The trigger could take any form, the cause and source unknown..Probably heat or vacuum sensitive. The response is a literally limitless crushing force against the intruder, resulting in a chain reaction of friction and greater force, with an inevitable consequence.

UF acts:-

6.   in a ripple like effect,  as if the blemish has been dropped into a pond, strongest at each center fading to nothing at the outer edge
7.   Equally and simultaneously in all directions ie, the force on a perfect sphere would be exactly equal in each direction and therefore balanced. While the force on a cube would have an uneven effect on the flat surfaces, greater at the center lesser at the corners, effectively a balanced effect, assuming no outside influences, both these options would be balanced and would not result in movement. While an uneven shape such as a planet would cause a “domino” of motion resulting in continued rotation.
8.   Independently from other sister forces carrying out similar cleansing roles across the universe.
9.   forces in close enough in proximity would directly and proportionally effect each other
10.   

Examples of effect
11.   Gravity
1.   In fact what we term gravity is a downward force caused by UF
2.   The earth is yet another blemish in the universal pond in the relatively short, but to us long, process of being dealt with by UF
3.   UF has identified the friction or heat at core of the planet and is reacting as it must by slowly crushing the Earth
4.   Rotation of planet is due to uneven surface and shape of landscape
5.   Each element of the earth compacts downwards towards the blemish at the core,  effectively supporting the element laying above it, all of us waiting for the inevitable
6.   Further effects of UF are that the sea and other elements are bombarded with varying levels of downward force, causing a further chain-reaction effect. The effect of UF is as a child bouncing on a bed. The lighter element in the Earth’s atmosphere are bounced around like pillows in an uncontrollable fashion, this is turn drastically effects the climate tides and so on
12.   Propulsion in space
1.   We assume a rocket propelled vehicle
2.   When the rocket fuel ignites an effective sphere shaped explosion is created causing UF to and attack in all directions equally.
3.   The rocket design is such that the tip of the body of the propulsion device is some distance from the core of the explosion and acts to greatly reduce the UF forces at one side of the core only, therefore the UF forces create controlled movement of the rocket 
4.   The UF force at the tip of the rocket is at its weakest though in a direct line with the centre of the core, at the other end UF force is pushing towards the centre of the core, creating a mini gravity effect around the explosion the core 
5.   In fact the explosion/blemish is itself is being propelled forward through space, if the propulsion of a space vehicle was a coiled spring, when the spring was released  it would cause no forward movement of the vehicle
13.   Combustion in space
1.   If there were a balanced explosion in space with no external influences, there would follow a ripple effect from the core of the explosion with an equal force emitting outwards on all sides, what would happen to that force if not engulfed and digested by UF
2.   Are we to believe that when the fuel is exhausted the force of the explosion vanishes or fades away?
3.   Why is it not being countered and defeated by the UF force
4.   What if the fuel load was such that the explosion lasted for a week or a thousand years, with no gravity to speak off as we now teach, what stops the explosion from spreading across the universe from its core at an unimaginable speed engulfing all in its wake

Thoughts please  ... be kind:-)
Kevin
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 06/10/2007 13:02:37
Hi Kevin;

I see that you're a "Newbie", like me. If I might suggest something, I think that you would find more attention from those interested in your theory, if you asked the moderators to transfer it to "New Theories", so it can stand on its own.

By burying it in the middle of the debate about my theory, you have taken away your access to those who might be interested in your thoughts.

Good luck with it.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 06/10/2007 14:50:55
Hi BC;

You're in black print, me in red, as usual.

"I don't think that I ever said that there was any electrical influence involved in Cavendish’s experiment, but what I also did not say, is that regardless of the safeguards he built into the torsion bar device, he could not guard it from the influence of our weather changes. "

and, as I have said the experiment has been repeated many times since. How come the weather always has the same effect when the one thing that weather is famed for being is variable?
They knew about air pressure,  if this force had depended on the pressure they would probably have noticed it. The problem still remains. Why did the balls move sideways?

Also, what do you mean by "When it is noted that the properties of lead and mercury are extremely close, the apparent relevance of the following observation might send some people scrambling to their reference books."

Well, in the first place, I don't see how it becomes my resposibility, to explain the results of all those experiments and any minute variances between them that might have been virtually unmeasurable at the scale which it is claimed that "gravity" works. What I will only do is try to explain why I believe the whole Cavendish Experiment must be scientifically re-checked, in the light of the recognition of the fact that his apparatus was a giant aneroid barometer.

I do not have access to any of the measurements conducted at the original or the repeated experimental efforts to compare. I have no idea who would have them all, nor how completely comparitive they would be.
This apparatus was an aneroid barometer. Cavendish found that the Earth's density was 5.448 times that of water. He was working with lead, (which is almost the same atomic weight as mercury, another barometric utility), and as the density of the large and small lead balls changed with pressure and temperature, they may have only appeared to get closer to each other, when in fact, their density/compactness distances apart may have been caused by temperature and/or air pressure. These do change the density of matter.

That all experiments produced the "same result" is only to say that there was an appearance of a "measurable attraction". That difference is, or can be different than the results of adjacent lead-ball density changes.
We know nothing of the seasons nor the locations of any of the experiments except that Cavendish did his in a shed, i.e. - outside, and certainly not "temperature controlled". We don't know the laboratory facilities nor the weather factors or dates where any of the others were conducted. (Almost certainly those records are available somewhere).
We don't know that the original weights, roundness, and weight measurements were absolutely precise by the technical standards that we would use today, and I, for one, am fairly sure that changes in density will be radically different between a 348 lb., and a 2 lb. lead ball.

What I am saying is that by Cavendish's design, all the experiment and its repeats have been done using an aneroid barometer, which will produce the results that an aneroid barometer is designed to do.

I see no solidly rational and proven "evidence" in any of this, that Newton's theoretical force called "gravity", produced any result or measurable "force" at all.

Sorry. But Cavendish's lead balls are now somebody else's ball. I will answer no more questions in this theory that further seek to condemn these observations without disproving them as being genuinely pertinent questions.

Thanks for help and input from everybody.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2007 17:15:19
"Well, in the first place, I don't see how it becomes my resposibility, to explain the results of all those experiments and any minute variances between them that might have been virtually unmeasurable at the scale which it is claimed that "gravity" works."It's your responsibility because you are the one putting forward the new theory.

"What I will only do is try to explain why I believe the whole Cavendish Experiment must be scientifically re-checked, in the light of the recognition of the fact that his apparatus was a giant aneroid barometer."
It is far from clear that his apparatus was acting as a barometer so don't call it a fact.
"This apparatus was an aneroid barometer. "
No it was not. Stop saying this unless you have some evidence to prove it.


The effect of atmospheric density on apparent weight is well known. In accurate measurements it is corrected for. (you sometimes see references to weights in vacuo for exactly this reason).
The important fact about it here is that it produces a force straight upwards against gravity.
The balls in Cavendish's experiment moved sideways.
The fact that mercury and lead have similar atomic weights doesn't seem to me to have any relevance.

It is true that we don't have data on the weather while Cavendish or hundreds of others did this experiment. What we do know is that they all got the same answer. If that's due to the weather then, presumably, they must all have had the same weather. The odds on that make it an absurd suggestion.
If this "What I am saying is that by Cavendish's design, all the experiment and its repeats have been done using an aneroid barometer, which will produce the results that an aneroid barometer is designed to do." were true then the results would be all over the place because that's what the weather is like. All the experiments give the same answer so the one thing it cannot be measuring is the weather.

What Cavendish did was to take a lump of stuff and put another lump of stuff near it. He noted that there was a force between the 2 lumps of stuff.
That was a real observation. The force he measured is called gravity.
It's real.
Does this "Sorry. But Cavendish's lead balls are now somebody else's ball. I will answer no more questions in this theory that further seek to condemn these observations without disproving them as being genuinely pertinent questions."  mean that, because Cavendish's experiment proves that gravity exists and therefore proves that you are flat wrong, you won't talk about it?

Anyway, here's the report on a similar experiment undertaken in a vacuum chamber. There's clearly no effect of air pressure here and the result is the same. Gravity exists and obeys an inverse square law.
http://www.physics.uci.edu/gravity/papers/HoskinsPaper.pdf

And, if you still think that's too nearly Cvaendishes experiment, how do you explain the outcome of this experiment?
http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/planetsbeyond/gravity.html
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 06/10/2007 21:56:38
Hi BC:

I'm red print.

Does this, "Sorry, but Cavendish's lead balls are now somebody else's ball. I will answer no more questions in this theory that further seek to condemn these observations without disproving them as being genuinely pertinent questions." mean that, because Cavendish's experiment proves that gravity exists and therefore proves that you are flat wrong, you won't talk about it?

Not yet I guess, because I obviously haven’t covered all possibilities for the “attraction”, so here goes....

Wikipedia says: Covalency is greatest between atoms of similar electronegativities. Thus, covalent bonding does not necessarily require the two atoms be of the same elements, only that they be of comparable electronegativity. (“Not necessarily” implies of course, that covalency is a strong attractive force that exists between the atoms of different masses of the same element. E.g. – Separated atoms of the same elements that have similar electronegativities have a natural affinity for each other. If you put a block of pure lead beside another block of pure lead, they have a fundamental attraction for each other. Same thing goes between two blocks of pure copper, etc. Every pure element must “like its own kind” before it “likes” anything else. Metallic ore bodies often exist in large concentrations.)

In the molecule H2, the hydrogen atoms share the two electrons via covalent bonding. (This is a pretty good example of attraction between two atoms of the same element.)

Re:   http://www.physics.uci.edu/gravity/papers/HoskinsPaper.pdf

It says: “The balance bar, vertical hanger, mirror, and damping cylinder, as well as the four attracting masses (m, and m’, and the two far masses), were all made of OFHC copper, etc.”

In the Cavendish experiment, he used 4 lead balls; likely all cast from the same heat of ingots. i.e – uniform chemistry and properties.

If you don’t give any credit to atmospheric pressure and temperature as being reasons for “attraction” between separated masses, then maybe you would like to be the one to explain what part of the measured attractions between the “like materials” in each of your two experiments was “gravity”, and what part was natural attraction within their individual kinds.

As for the other experiment you pointed to at  
 http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/planetsbeyond/gravity.html

Please tell me what the mountain and the pendulum were made of, and I’ll take a stab at it. In the meantime, I still maintain that Newton was wrong about “gravity” being a force of any kind. I say it does not exist, and if we all look hard enough, it will explain that what we thought was “gravity”, is really other things.

I say the universe is run on electricity and the other reliable and proven forces known to Physics, while poor old “gravity” will always remain just an orphan concept that has gone mad.

Thank you. Cheers.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2007 15:53:18
This " atoms of different masses of the same element" doesn't make sense because atoms of the same element often have the same mass and seldom have markedly different masses. Covalency is an effect of the electrostatic attraction between nuclei and the electrons anyway so can have little to do with this. In fact, since it only applies to the atoms within one molecule, it cannot possibly apply to the forces between two distinct objects.
"Every pure element must “like its own kind” before it “likes” anything else. "
Nonsense, the atoms of carbon in a lump of coal and the atoms of oxygen in the molecules floating about in the air are clearly happy to change partners to produce carbon dioxide. They do this because (to continue the anthropomorphism) they like each-other more than they like their own kind.
"In the molecule H2, the hydrogen atoms share the two electrons via covalent bonding. (This is a pretty good example of attraction between two atoms of the same element.)"
Yes, and that attraction is sated by just one partner. To get the H2 molecules to hang out together as a liquid you have to cool it nearly to absolute zero.

Covalency therefore has nothing to do with the Cavendish experiment.

There is no evidence for your supposed "attraction between like substances" and there is (as I have shown) considerable evidence against. This attraction therefore doesn't exist.

"If you don’t give any credit to atmospheric pressure and temperature as being reasons for “attraction” between separated masses, then maybe you would like to be the one to explain what part of the measured attractions between the “like materials” in each of your two experiments was “gravity”, and what part was natural attraction within their individual kinds."
OK that's easy. The whole of the attractive force comes from gravity and none of it comes from the force whose existence I have just disproved.
Incidentally, it's not just that I give no credit to temperature and pressure as possible explanations. I explicitly explained why they cannot be the explanation, they change but the effet remains. Knowing that, how can anyone give them credit?

As for "Please tell me what the mountain and the pendulum were made of," I can't see how it matters but my best guess is the pendula were made of lead bobs, probably on tungsten or steel wires. The mountain was made of rock; they generally are. I think that part of the world is noted for granite so that's a reasonable expectation for the mountain.

Perhaps you might care to tell me what they could have been made of that would have made any difference.
In the meantime perhaps you would like to give an explanation for the observation that things atract one-another as shown in Cavendish's experiment.

 " I say the universe is run on electricity and the other reliable and proven forces known to Physics, while poor old “gravity” will always remain just an orphan concept that has gone mad." and I say the madness is discounting the evidence of things like the moon's orbit, the tides and the direct experimental observations of gravity.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 07/10/2007 20:16:33
Hi BC:

I'm in red.


I said: "If you don’t give any credit to atmospheric pressure and temperature as being reasons for “attraction” between separated masses, then maybe you would like to be the one to explain what part of the measured attractions between the “like materials” in each of your two experiments was “gravity”, and what part was natural attraction within their individual kinds."

OK that's easy. The whole of the attractive force comes from gravity and none of it comes from the force whose existence I have just disproved.

 You didn't disprove anthing. I think you basically know that I’m talking about what goes on inside “bulk matter”, which can be e.g. - pure copper, or pure lead, or it can be an alloy or whatever.  

 We are talking about lead and copper, not any atmospheric gases that can be floating free, ready to bond with other covalent gases and/or solid elements. Whether you refuse to attribute the mutual attraction of atoms within a ball of pure matter of a single element to covalence or anything else, it does not make you right. The fact remains that if the atoms were not attracted to each other, the pure lead would not be bonded into a ball, and neither would the pure copper be bonded into the other shapes described in the other cited experiments. If the nuclear forces are what holds the nucleus of an atom together, and all the atoms in bulk matter are coerced by the nuclear forces, then so is the bulk metal itself.

 You also said "There is no evidence for your supposed "attraction between like substances" and there is (as I have shown) considerable evidence against. This attraction therefore doesn't exist."


Check out   http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/liquids/faq/h-bonding-vs-london-forces.shtml  then tell me that there are no other forces working between atoms in bulk matter. It seems logical that if these forces which are obviously measurable are working inside one bulk ball of lead, then they are likely measurable between two bulk balls of lead in close proximity.

Thanks again.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2007 21:28:56
" I think you basically know that I'm talking about what goes on inside “bulk matter”"
Exactly my point. Things like covalency apply inside matter. They don't creep out and influence other lumps of stuff (except technically on a tiny scale which isn't what we are on about here).

"We are talking about lead and copper, not any atmospheric gases that can be floating free, ready to bond with other covalent gases and/or solid elements.  "

OK, imagine I had said sulphur and copper as the two reactants rather than burning coal. It's another example that proves that atoms quite often prefer to be with other atoms. In the limit, if this were not the case there simply wouldn't be any compounds, only elements. The idea that elements prefer to be with themselves rather than other elements is demonstrated to be false by the roughly 200000000 known, documented chemical compounds. Why do you insist on restating it?

As for London forces, do you remember me saying this "
While some measurements have shown that the universe isn't quite as simple as we had thought  the idea that gravity (with it's inverse square law) could be replaced by the dipole dipole interaction (inverse cube) or even worse the induced dipole induced dipole interaction that would need to be used for macroscopic uncharged conductive items like planets and stars (inverse 6th power IIRC) is plain daft. Someone would have noticed."
The London forces are among the inverse 6th power rule forces I mentioned so of course I don't deny them. It was me who first pointed them out. They have completely the wrong characteristics to be responsible for gravity. They don't depend on mass and they don't show a preference for atraction between like substances. Why bring them up again, did you not believe me when I said it would be daft to ascribe the Cavendish experiment results to them?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 08/10/2007 16:51:22
Hi BC;

I suggested a website for you to check out, and you rejected it. Try this one, and as I said, “then tell me that there are no other forces working between atoms in bulk matter. The “Binding Energy” forces are measurable within lattice structures, and so are working inside one bulk ball of pure lead, (or copper), etc., so, being immediately adjacent to another ball of lead....

I’ll let you tell me what’s wrong with this picture. Being clearly named “structures”, are lattices in homogeneous bulk matter bound together, or not? With the variation in energy strength being peculiar to the elements themselves, and their covalencies, who specifically has investigated or experimented with any “unknown by Newton” effects that exist outside/between two adjacent masses of any comparative composition?

PLease don't confuse the issue by trying to extend your explanations to vast spaces like planets and stars. This study between us is obviously something that relates to bulk matter situations of tight proximities, because you and everyone else are the ones who are using Cavendish as your "gospel".


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


Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2007 20:05:18
OK, that wiki page lists 2 sorts of binding energies; those inside nuclei where the strong and weak nuclear forces are involved and those inside normal matter which are electromagnetic in nature. These are the forces that make nuclear power work and the forces that make steel stronger than rubber. They only exist over short ranges. You can only get glue to stick things together if you put the things together. Putting glue on 2 bits of paper on either side of the room doesn't make them attract eachother.

"clearly named “structures”, are lattices in homogeneous bulk matter bound together, or not? "
Yes of course they are bound, essentially by electromagnetic forces that terminate at the surfaces of the materials. Nothing to do with gravity which lets things pull on distant objects.

"With the variation in energy strength being peculiar to the elements themselves, and their covalencies, who specifically has investigated or experimented with any “unknown by Newton” effects that exist outside/between two adjacent masses of any comparative composition?
"
Sorry I'm not sure I understand that (though, as I already pointed out, covalency is a short range force and has nothing to do with this) but I think there are currently experiments underway that are looking into effects that Newton couldn't have known about
eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
The effect is minute- almost impossible to measure.

"PLease don't confuse the issue by trying to extend your explanations to vast spaces like planets and stars. This study between us is obviously something that relates to bulk matter situations of tight proximities, because you and everyone else are the ones who are using Cavendish as your "gospel".
"
That's just being silly. Gravity is the only force known to have a meaningful effect over those ranges (for reasons I have already explained)
However the 2 experiments I did list, Cavendish's and Maskelyne's are on a terrestrial scale.
Cavendish's apparatus would fit in a decent size garrage. One of the other papers shows inverse square law behaviour over a reasonable range- a foot or so. Why do you think we are talking about "tight proximities".

Why are you talking about stuff on massive scales, I know it's where gravity really excells, but I havelt talked about it simply because that scale is ouside our normal experience?

Incidentally, I'm not using Cavendish as my Gospel. I'm using the idea of empirical evidence as my gospel.
It has been found by numerous experimenters with various techniques that bits of matter attract one another with a force proportional to their masses and to the reciprocal of the distance between them.
Do you accept that this is a fact?
If not, why do you think they are all lying?
If you do accept that it is true how do you explain it?
It's certainly nothing to do with any of the forces you have mentioned so far.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 12/10/2007 18:14:53
Hi;

Fighting against the winds of resistance that will never relent, I find it necessary to break the discussion of whether or not this theoretical “gravity” has any reason to exist, down to a mere hypothesis.
 
The workings of the nucleus of an atom are the smallest “balanced particles” of matter, because outside the nucleus’ exterior, the actions of electrons and their covalent trading must fit the 3rd Law.
 
Newton’s 3rd Law (“For every action, there is (mandatorily), an equal and opposite reaction”),  has been proven to be correct, so it is universally true, even at the atomic level. Covalence of course, has also been proven true.
Attraction could not emanate from the nucleus of any internally-bonded balanced atom, which leaves only the possibility that the universally common electron interchanges, (i.e. covalence), could be responsible for any kind of attractive influence. The source of a “force” called “gravity” is merely theoretical. There has to be a cause for any coercion to exist, and this means “energy”, at the fundamental level. It is illogical to say that a “force” just is a force, without a parent energetic cause.
=================================================================================================================

The hypothesis: (To examine why this theoretical “gravity” would even be deemed necessary.)

If a hypothetical universe was filled with only two elements; one of gas, and one of solid, then what force alone would be necessary to combine the two into the only altered state that could occur, in any circumstance? If that one force was covalence between the two types, then what need would there be for any other attractive force, such as the theoretical one we call “gravity”?

There are only two types of element within this hypothesis, but the actual existence of more kinds than two, has nothing to do with the causes and effects of the known and proven Laws of Physics that exist. These would not be changed or different than they are known to be. Any physically possible effects that exist (if there were only two elements), would be at the service of our single and only possible “atomic union” that could be enacted by covalence within the terms of our hypothetical “two element universe”. The total number of atoms that would exist in the vacuum of entire universe, (within our hypothesis), will be said to be exactly equivalent to the total number of all the (100 or so) actual atoms of every element that really do exist in the real universe. (Just to put a silly face on the scenario, we will explain what is meant by saying that whether there are 100 elements, or only two, the universe would still contain 100 trillion quadrillion atoms, (an obviously fictitious hypothetical estimate).

There could be only 2 states of existence for each of the two hypothetical elements that exist within the vacuum; one would be gas, and one would be solid. The state of their union is irrelevant here, because this is only a hypothesis, but to recognize that a union would conform to the known realities of what truly occurs in the real universe, we must state that the unions would do nothing but fall through the vacuum. The encounters between covalent unions would begin to create masses of varying sizes over time, but nothing else would occur, except by chance encounters. The unions would occasionally encounter “anti-unions”, and they would obliterate each other.
As boring as this hypothetical universe would be, the only forces at work would be the electrical covalence, and the effects created by the necessities drawn from the momentary needs of the other true physical laws. Physical pressures and masses would exist, and everything would simply be falling in all directions. Nothing would be attracted to anything else, (such as ”gravity”), unless by covalence at moments and the convenience of proximity and motion.

There would simply be covalence and physical encounters, whether positive or anti-positive. Nothing would form into bodies of any specific shape, such as roundness, and the whole universe would be simply chaotic, except for the happenings attributable to the capabilities of energy. “Force” would be nothing without energy to feed its actions, and there is no physical energy that has ever been identified that causes something called “gravity” to exist everywhere in the universe. If there is no gravity, there is no “super gravity”, as in black holes. There is also no micro and no macro gravity.

End of hypothesis.
================================================================================================================

At the moment of the “Big Bang”, if that was our beginning, the proven Laws of Physics came into play. They instantly were entitled to “rule”. We have discovered much about them and their capabilities, but we have found no “gravitons”. We have found no “dark matter”, so we have invented a name for it, (but, according to Wikipedia, “Neutrinos are the only known particles that are not significantly attenuated by their travel through the interstellar medium.” So, what does this says about “gravitons”?

Since there is no gravity in space, then how does our moon “pull” our tides across the 238,000 mile span? If our moon is being held in orbit by our magnetic attraction’s reach into space, as coupled to the moon’s magnetic attraction by a ring current, then the centripetal force may be sufficient to explain tidal action on the Earth. No “gravity” would be involved here. The electromagnetic bond between the two bodies is rather like a pail of water swung round on a string. A centripetal balancing force directed back towards the Earth makes far more sense than does an alleged 1/6th gravity pulling inwards the moon, that can pull our tides from 238,000 miles away, on a planet that is alleged to (also) be pulling inwards to itself with a comparative gravity force that is supposedly 6/6ths, as compared to the moon’s 1/6th. The centripetal force is what gives the tether its tension.

If there is no gravity in space, could a black hole simply be the accumulation of quantities of the antimatter that seems to be “unaccounted for” after the Big Bang? Would it not summon all passing matter to war with itself, without gravity?

We have found and confirmed the existence of a universal “Negative Pressure”, but we don’t really know what it does. It seems obvious that it would be a sub-atomic pressure that lies beneath the visible functions of space, much like a giant “motherboard”. The positive pressure of matter exists of course, so perhaps negative pressure simply must be the balancing source of positive pressure, to make the 3rd Law true at a universal scale.
We know many things about the Van Allen Belts, and other electrical facilities like magnetospheres, but we are not completely sure what many of these do, or how they do whatever they are suspected to be doing.

We attribute body roundness to something called “accretion”, which makes no real sense. Why isn’t everything absolutely round? Where are the other orbiting planetary shapes that could have formed if random attraction was a rule? Why is everything inside atmospheres not round? These objects have atmospheric pressure as well, that should be able to “assist gravity”, to make round things as it is alleged to do in its spatial “role” of causing accretion.

Can science explain exactly what accounts for the alleged “attraction”, (across a vacuum that has no gravity and occurs between the point charge of two masses), which depends on their radial distance? If matter simply falls, either in space, or in any atmosphere, then where is the need for another force that we call “gravity”? If it did exist as a force, it could only be an atomically external effect, which is said to “attract” other matter, but there is no real and visible evidence of this “constant and measurable attraction”. What instances are observed might be incidences of centripetal force and electromagnetic connections.

Why do Janus and Epimetheus never collide, when they pass each other only 50 kilometers apart, yet simply trade orbits every four years?

Now, why would a force called gravity even be required? Where is its energy source? The universe, including matter, is electrical in nature, and the measurement between point charges under Coulomb’s Law produces a result that equates to Newtonian math, and something must balance every atom to meet Newton’s 3rd Law. Perhaps Coulomb’s inverse square math should simply replace Newton’s Law of Gravitation.
============================================================================================================

Are these “stupid questions” by the theoretically “standard” beliefs of science? Sure; maybe most (or all) of them are, but science will never eradicate what they deign to be “total ignorance” by not stepping outside of what only seems to be convenient to their hierarchical searches.
 
A long time ago, I became convinced that when I want to know something badly enough, sometimes I only find “the right question”. I am now completely convinced that whether or not you believe in a “grand design”, the search for “the right question” is where every study should begin. That question should never be funded by the theoretical, regardless of the genius that came from any human origin. It should emanate from no place but the absolutes of the known – i.e. truths, and this “theory-free” list can only be constructed at the apex of academia. In the meantime, the rest of us will only continue to demand our rights from those whose job it is, to whittle the baloney into the shape, brilliance, and durability of a diamond. Some in the sciences may already be studying in exactly this way.

To those who believe like myself, that science might not be doing an adequate job of answering our questions, should all remain faithful to the fact that all scientists are doing their very best to discover what is the real truth. They did, after all, select those careers for exactly that reason, and they brought along their entire intellect and imagination to bolster the great search. It may even pop up suddenly as a realization, which is most certainly the most painful form of discovery, for a provable realization is the most dramatic form of evidence. Incomplete “appearances”, such as Cavendish’s experiment, are not evidence that gravity truly exists, without the elimination of all other possibilities, and these cannot be known until the minutia of subatomic analysis has been fully explored and proven.

Let’s cheer all of science onwards, all the way to the right answers, and trust that they are considering even the “tripe” we sometimes unwittingly inject in their path.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 13/10/2007 14:14:47
Hi;

Just another set of observations:

                                                      Boyling an Old Theory

If we are able to accept that no force (such as “gravity), can exist without having a coercive energy source, perhaps we can look for a deeper secret than a force that still remains a theory after more than 300 years. If everything in the universe is indeed surviving under the influence of a controlling force, then perhaps we should consider Boyle’s Law, which states 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.”

If Boyles’ Law was actually the influential factor that held the entire contents of the universe within their positions and limited roles, it would seem to imply that the universe would have to be closed. But what if the “universally closed vessel” is simply enclosed by the (continuously widening) reverse pressures of universal expansion? It would not be a stifling containment, and all the observable actions within the vacuum of space would still be able to perform as we see them, and certainly in ways that we have not yet explained. Electricity would, of course, be the fundamental provider of “force”, and Charles Augustin de Coulomb would be the hero of the math that equates to Newton’s 3rd Law.

The universal expansion pressures might have the greatest compressive effect on antimatter, confining it largely into black holes. In the secondary case, the pressures would be (exteriorly) enclosing material bodies and galaxies. The pressures would extend all the way down to molten cores and even atomic nuclei. There would be no "attractive force" (like gravity) between bodies at all, unless it happened by covalence.

Plasmaspheres and plasmapauses might be more easily explained, as would everything inside them. The roundness of planets and other great masses might be far more plausibly attributed to externally global pressures than by something called “gravitational accretion”. The great masses would demand much more external pressure upon their huge surface areas, and the permeability of every body’s composition would likely be relational to its density, helping to explain the random existence of molten cores.
 
Suns, gas balls, and other spatial phenomena might be more easily understood, and science might be able to proceed in other logical directions, if they were armed with a completely altered philosophy.

I make no claim that any of this is more than “just another theory”, but I have always wondered why in the few memories I hold from my dislike for school, sits a vivid recollection of Boyle’s Law, which I was made to write 50 times on the blackboard, as a punishment for some long forgotten trivial offence.

All I am asking for is a little encouragement to continue, or for valid logical reasons why all of this can not be possible.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/10/2007 17:18:57
"The workings of the nucleus of an atom are the smallest “balanced particles” of matter, because outside the nucleus’ exterior, the actions of electrons and their covalent trading must fit the 3rd Law."It's easy enough to see that the positive charge on the nucleus is not balanced unless it's part of an atom with the electrons carrying an equal negative charge.
In what sense is the nucleus "balanced"? Without a definition of the rather odd use of "balanced" It's impossible to say anything about it.
 
"Newton’s 3rd Law (“For every action, there is (mandatorily), an equal and opposite reaction”),  has been proven to be correct, so it is universally true, even at the atomic level.
 Covalence of course, has also been proven true."
Covalency is only stictly true for homonuclear daitomics and a few other special cases.
For the most part it's only an aproximation.

"Attraction could not emanate from the nucleus of any internally-bonded balanced atom, "
Says who?
Why can't the graviational atraction of something emanate from the nucleus?
That's where nearly all the mass is and therfore that's where most of the gravit is from.
Please stop making unsuported false statements like this.
and "which leaves only the possibility that the universally common electron interchanges, (i.e. covalence), could be responsible for any kind of attractive influence. "which is also nonsense. There could be anoyther force involved. Just because electromagnetic forces are common does not mean they are the only ones.

"If that one force was covalence between the two types,"
strict covalency only occurs between identical atoms.

And so on, the whole lot is full of mis-statements, poorly explained ideas and absurd hypothetical examples.
Unless you can tell me what,apart from gravity, moves the balls in the two experients I think you have to accept that gravity exists.

By the way you might want to look here and see what Boyles's law is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law
The bit about exerting a pressure equally in all directions is only an aproximation because it ignores the effect of gravity.
It would be simple enough to get a long pipe and fill it with air. Measurements of the pressure at the top and bottom of the pipe would give different values. This is yet another exaple of the effect of gravity. If you got a pipe as tall as emount Everest the pressure at the top would be about a third of that at the bottom.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 15/10/2007 14:44:40
I notice that currently, based upon his post count, Bored Chemist is automatically assigned the title Hero Member. In my book he fully rates the title Hero for patiently, persistently and effectively challenging the flaky speculation that fleep has been indulging in.

Fleep, although you have now downgraded your speculation from theory to hypothesis, you still used the phrase 'only a theory', as though suggesting theories are somehow second rate. Theories are as good as it gets in science. As Ben V pointed out a theory has been well validated, probably in several independent ways, and has such a wealth of supporting observation behind it as to be accepted as all but certain. We just don't get any more solid than that in science: using a phrase like 'only a theory' mkes you sound like a creationist, or at the very least someone who doesn't understand science to well. I imagine you might want to aovid that impression.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2007 19:44:55
Thanks for those kind words. Others might say that I should just get out more.
Whatever, I just think that non science such as Fleep keeps posting should be rebutted in case it misleads someone who comes across this site. If the last word in a thread said something like the stuff Fleep peddles someone might think it was true or at least reasonable.

His lack of understanding of the word "theory" is irksome but it's his seeming lack of science- specifically the lack of the understanding of the importance of evidence- that troubles me.

I'm still waiting patiently for him to explain what moved the balls in Cavendish's experiment.

Oh, and Fleep, since you seem to have missed it before.

Covalency has nothing to do with gravity.
 Covalency is a short range force, gravity acts over greater distances.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 23/10/2007 15:19:03
Hi;

Please excuse my long but necessary absence from addressing your criticisms. Thank you for all comments.

Let's try another tack...

Energy transfer - (Wikipedia)

“Because energy is strictly conserved and is also locally conserved (wherever it can be defined), it is important to remember that by definition of energy the transfer of energy between the "system" and adjacent regions is work. A familiar example is mechanical work.”

In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force.

Positive and negative signs of work indicate whether the object exerting the force is transferring energy to some other object, or receiving it.” (Remember that we are working here with mechanical work as only one example).

“A cylinder (hydraulic or pneumatic): Provides force in a linear fashion.
A motor (hydraulic or pneumatic): Provides continuous rotational motion.
A rotary actuator: Provides rotational motion of less than 360 degrees.”
======================================================================================================

Ergo  – A “force” must convey energy before work can be done. (Like pulling Cavendish’s experimental lead balls together.)

Ergo – If gravity is a “force”, then what is that “something” that provides that “force” (called gravity), and permits it to transfer an unidentified but known form of energy that will do the “work”? That is to say; if energy is being transferred to do work, (i.e. – from matter to adjacent matter), then what known physical medium is the energy-conveying avenue across the space between the two separated pieces of matter? It simply has to be electricity.

In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?

“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions.

We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?
=============================================================================================================

Magnetism - (Wikipedia)

In physics, magnetism is one of the phenomena by which materials exert attractive or repulsive forces on other materials. Some well known materials that exhibit easily detectable magnetic properties (called magnets) are nickel, iron and their alloys; however, all materials are influenced to greater or lesser degree by the presence of a magnetic field.
Magnetism also has other manifestations in physics, particularly as one of the two components of electromagnetic waves such as light.

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

Physics of magnetism – (Wikipedia)

Magnetism, electricity, and special relativity

Main article: Electromagnetism

“As a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity, electricity and magnetism are understood to be fundamentally interlinked. Both magnetism without electricity, and electricity without magnetism, are inconsistent with special relativity, due to such effects as length contraction, time dilation, and the fact that the magnetic force is velocity-dependent. However, when both electricity and magnetism are taken into account, the resulting theory (electromagnetism) is fully consistent with special relativity. In particular, a phenomenon that appears purely electric to one observer may be purely magnetic to another, or more generally the relative contributions of electricity and magnetism are dependent on the frame of reference. Thus, special relativity "mixes" electricity and magnetism into a single, inseparable phenomenon called electromagnetism (analogously to how special relativity "mixes" space and time into spacetime).”

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

Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math.

I wonder:

If Coulomb had “happened” before Newton, which way would science have gone? Would its direction have come from Coulomb, using the reality of the known Laws of Physics? If Newton, with his observations and math that arose only from an appearance of possibility, (that happened to match Coulomb’s (inverse square) math), had come along after Coulomb, might Newton’s theory, (existing only outside the known and proven types of energy) have been declared to be suspect in some regard? I have to believe that science would have already followed the Coulomb path.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2007 20:04:36
"then what known physical medium is the energy-conveying avenue across the space between the two separated pieces of matter? It simply has to be electricity."
For a start the answer is gravitons or gravity waves take your pick. For a finish why say something like this "It simply has to be electricity"?

To say something like that is simply to restate your opinion that gravity doesn't exist; you cannot logically use it to prove anything about gravity.
It's like saying because onions cannot be pickled, pickled onions don't exist.

As for this "In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"Alow me to paraphrase it.

"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “electromagnetism” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “permittivity of free space(“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"
Your point is just as poor at writing off electromagnetism as it is at denying gravity.

"“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions."
Oh yes it does; and we are back to gravitons again.

"We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?"

No it's not more likely to be electricityy; were you still not listening when I explained again that for uncharged items like the sun and earth or, for that matter Cavendish's equipment, the electrostatic interactions fall off with the sixth power of the distance but gravity shows an inverse square law? This is still- since you don't seem to have paid any attention last time, due to the fact that gravity is always an atractive force.

"Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math."
OK; I read it; it's about electrostatics- the attraction between charged particles. The earth and moon don't have a charge so, while it's mathematically elegant, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and, by harping on about it you just show that you have not read or not understood what I have said.

I don't see how Coulomb could really have predated Newton. Until Newton formulated the 3 laws of mechanics the concept of a force was poorly defined.
It's possible that the law of electrostatic attraction could, in some way, have been noted before Newton's work.
I have little doubt that, had this happened, it would have made no real difference. Newton would have realised that Coulomb's law only applies to charged bodies; the earth and sun (and Cavendish's equipment) are not charged, so there must be something else.
It seems that, even though it has been poiunted out several times, you are unable to grasp this difference.




Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 25/10/2007 15:12:26

Hi;

“In common usages, people often use the word “theory” to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, etc. –Wikipedia

Everybody has often used the sentence; “I have a theory about that.” It’s the same thing as the way we all use “arithmetic” and “mathematics” without regard for the tender differences in their dictionary meanings. Please stop with the red herrings! Time is wasted for nothing when we drag each other into these useless criticisms. Let’s talk hypothetically, and we can all get past the semantics that Ophiolite is so incensed about. Consider my use of the word “theory”, anywhere I use it, as though I’m talking as all us “common people do”.  I will say “hypothetically” sometimes when I feel it’s appropriate to the expression of my meaning. If the word “theory” creeps into the description of one of my hypothetical contentions, just shake it off. Semantics is a childish diversionary tactic that’s often used to extend a debate, usually for the purpose of breaking the thought train of the other party. I don’t like that stupid game.

For a start the answer is gravitons or gravity waves take your pick.
 
"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle,” etc. – Wikipedia

What? You’re using a scientific hypothesis to support your argument as if it was a real thing? How can you defend Newton's gravity with a hypothetical factor? Even he didn't use any explanation to theorize how a captive force could move around. A "graviton" is a hypothesis built over 300 years later by science itself to try to reinforce an already absolutely incompleted theory. The inability to shake the word “theory” from Newton’s Gravitational Theory” might continue to take its toll until (maybe) they will find that gravity really cannot be supported anymore.
 
For a finish why say something like this "It simply has to be electricity"?
 
Because the energy that is utilized by a force to perform work must be a real/known/proven utility that belongs to the physics family, like electromagnetic energy for example. What energy form would you suppose moves our tides, if it was suddenly proven that gravity is not real? Don’t dodge the question please. That’s a fair question for me to ask you, since, like your belief in the graviton, a scientific hypothesis, it is also funded by my hypothetical case against gravity.

To say something like that is simply to restate your opinion that gravity doesn't exist; you cannot logically use it to prove anything about gravity.

Then you can’t logically use “gravitons and gravity waves”, because they also exist only in the mind.

As for this "In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?" Allow me to paraphrase it.

"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “electromagnetism” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “permittivity of free space (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?"

Your point is just as poor at writing off electromagnetism as it is at denying gravity.

You misunderstood. It is you that are writing off electromagnetism, which is one in the family of known and proven electrical physical energy forms that I contend might be fundamentally responsible for the many universal observations that are attributed to gravity. I have said all along that I think it is natural forms of electrical circuitry in space that is connecting bodies to do the work (like putting a repulsive force between the moon and the Earth) to move the tides.

“Gravity” also does not specify what physically recognized form of energy is allegedly conveyed that performs an endless list of “work” functions, in any and all universal directions."

Oh yes it does; and we are back to gravitons again.
 
No. They cannot be used as factual. See above.

"We live in an electrical universe. Is it not more likely that electricity (which continually operates in both matter and vacuum), is the (not gravity) “something” that provides the “electrical force” that transfers the electrical energy that will universally perform the “work” that we attribute to a merely theoretical “force”?"

No it's not more likely to be electricityy; were you still not listening when I explained again that for uncharged items like the sun and earth or, for that matter Cavendish's equipment, the electrostatic interactions fall off with the sixth power of the distance but gravity shows an inverse square law? This is still- since you don't seem to have paid any attention last time, due to the fact that gravity is always an atractive force.

Here’s the problem. As long as you keep speaking from the perspective of math that was (and continues to be) created solely to try and explain the flaws in the inconsistencies of the gravity theory, you will never be mentally adventurous enough to even try and believe that your emperor just might be naked.
 
"Read that last Wiki excerpt however you like, but always keep in mind that it is the math of Coulomb’s (inverse square between point charges) Law that produces the same result as Newton’s math."

OK; I read it; it's about electrostatics- the attraction between charged particles. The earth and moon don't have a charge so, while it's mathematically elegant, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and, by harping on about it you just show that you have not read or not understood what I have said.

What we have individually said in this great hypothetical theatre we call imagination, (which is funded by the limits of understanding on either side), is irrelevant, if we do not go back to things like the actual definitions and explanations that we must derive from scientifically accurate sources. From what I’ve found in your reply, you are misunderstanding what Wiki is saying.

Again: A “force” needs an energy form as a “conveyor” of that force, for any work to be performed. A force is not an energy form, of or by itself. It is only a demand for a form of energy to make a delivery to a worksite. Newton’s “gravity” is “under house arrest” within matter, and so is only a “captive force” that cannot go out anywhere, without an “authorized vehicle” to carry it away from its home, and off to its place of work.

So, how does the moon’s (captive) “gravity force” get here, to influence our tides? What “vehicle” does it use?
(May I suggest that you read the whole article in Wikipedia about “Graviton” please?)

Thanks.
fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 26/10/2007 03:57:39
“In common usages, people often use the word “theory” to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, etc. –Wikipedia

Everybody has often used the sentence; “I have a theory about that.” It’s the same thing as the way we all use “arithmetic” and “mathematics” without regard for the tender differences in their dictionary meanings. Please stop with the red herrings! Time is wasted for nothing when we drag each other into these useless criticisms. Let’s talk hypothetically, and we can all get past the semantics that Ophiolite is so incensed about. Consider my use of the word “theory”, anywhere I use it, as though I’m talking as all us “common people do”.  I will say “hypothetically” sometimes when I feel it’s appropriate to the expression of my meaning. If the word “theory” creeps into the description of one of my hypothetical contentions, just shake it off. Semantics is a childish diversionary tactic that’s often used to extend a debate, usually for the purpose of breaking the thought train of the other party. I don’t like that stupid game.
This is a science forum. We are discussing scientific topics. It is appropriate to use the language of science in such a context. In such a context common usageis simply wrong. Your persistent use of it does not serve to educate those interested in science, but not well versed in it, in the correct use of terms. I shall continue to argue for proper use of terms and, frankly, I shall demand of those posters who should know better.
Semantics - lets see.. that has to do with meaning. You don't think meaning is important? If you consider using words in the correct way in the correct context to be 'a childish diversionary tactic', good luck to you. Loose usage of terms is acceptable in casual conversation. It is out of place in a serious scientific discussion. Perhaps you are not interested in participating in one of those. Having read your whimsical rebuttal of Bored Chemist's commentary I suspect that is the case.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 27/10/2007 16:35:35
Hi:

To "Bored Chemist" - A consideration please.

A pride in the status quo and the tremendous contributions of science to modern technology is a noble thing. I just don't want you or anyone else getting an impression, (unless you and others already have), that I'm genuinely trying to demean the accomplishments of days and people gone by. Why would I waste my old age on this obsession that I can barely stand, in trying to alienate other people? I'm old. I might die soon. I have other personal family interests and hobbies and duties that go begging on account of this whole mess. I want out, as quickly as possible, and I can't just let it go for some reason, until somebody else kills any possibility of progress with a solid and scientifically logical answer to the question that I first (unfortunately)  overly-explained in my last message to you. Based on the Wikipedia-based definitions, of "force", energy", and "work", that question was:

"How does the moon’s (captive) “gravity force” get (conveyed) here, to influence (work) our tides? What (non-hypothetical) “vehicle” does it use?"

There are important things that can possibly be answered if somebody even thought about taking the question seriously. How about "space sickness", for one example?

See: http://quest.nasa.gov/neuron/background/sls.html

The foregoing site seems to accentuate the study of space sickness effects caused by “microgravity”. It would also seem to be sensible to investigate ways in which our neurological systems might be short-circuiting by the ship’s passage through areas such as the Van Allen Belts, ring currents and/or the magnetosphere. If these are not already being done, perhaps such studies should be tried, completely separated from any “gravitational considerations”. Our bodies are run by electricity, so who knows what we might learn?

The Van Allen Belts are known to be harmful to human organisms and even satellites.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Impact_on_space_travel

Nothing else to say right now. Thanks for your help BC, and for everyone else's past contributions.

fleep


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/11/2007 19:00:16
HEY! Where is everybody?

There are standing questions here that no one is tackling.

To summarize:

A ‘force’ transfers ‘work’, using ‘energy’.
A ‘transfer’ is the conveyance of that work to a new owner/destination.
To ‘convey’, is to transport, e.g. – by land, or sea, or outer space.
A ‘conveyance’, is a ‘vehicle’, (energy), which is employed to fulfill a ‘force-transfer’.
To employ energy to make a force-transfer from one place to another is to transfer ‘work’.

Newton’s (theory of) gravitation is (theoretically) at work on the moon, where it is a local “force”. That local “force” is also (theoretically) performing work on the Earth’s tides. (This would be a 238,000 mile distant ‘force-transfer’, intended to utilize the moon’s transferred gravity-force to perform work on the Earth.)

I make these points because there is no factually-proven (non-hypothetical) scientific evidence that any ‘force’ can perform ‘distant ‘work’ without utilizing one of the known and commonly recognized forms of ‘energy’ as a ‘transfer vehicle’. After all, a ‘graviton’ is nothing but a ‘hypothetical, mass-less, elementary particle’, and “gravity waves’ have neither been actually found nor measured, according to Wikipedia. These remain only a hypothesis within Newton’s Theory of Gravitation.

Cavendish seemed to be satisfying the “verification” of gravity’s “existence” for the science community, that matter does attract other matter, but even his experiment does not answer the valid questions. But, as Wikipedia says, “All materials are influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the presence of a magnetic field.” Lead balls, as Cavendish used in his experiment, must also fall within the truth of this statement. Without a transfer of force between the lead balls by some existing known form of energy (like electromagnetism), the lead balls could not have moved at all.

So I must ask these questions, which must of course be confined to the known and proven energy forms:

1)   Which one of the real (non-hypothetical) energy forms is the force-conveying ‘vehicle’ of gravity, over any distance?
2)   If no existing energy transfers a local ‘force’ (“gravity”), no distant work can be done without a force-transfer? Right?
3)   If no existing energy transfers any local ‘force’, gravity can be neither a local nor a universal phenomenon? Right?
4)   Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*
5)   If all matter is influenced by an electromagnetic field, is it not likely that universal interactions are electromagnetic?

* (Question 4 arises from one dictionary definition of the word "weight"; i.e. - "gravity as a property of bodies".)

Is anyone out there, who will try to come forward with completely plausible answers?

Why are we all playing in this forum? Is it simply to insist that we are right in everything that we believe, or are we here to learn something? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But if any of my questions just pose a dilemma for your ability to answer, then how about just sharing that fact with the forum.  I don't know the answers to them either, or I wouldn't be asking.


References -  (Wikipedia)

Force, Energy, Work, Magnetism, and Physics of magnetism – (Main article: Electromagnetism)

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2007 13:18:13
Fleep
Do you understand that something that falls as the sixth power of the distance (like the electrostatic force between two uncharged bodies) is not, and can not be, the same as something that falls as the square of the distance (like the atraction observed between massive objects noted by Cavendish and many since)?


Really, if you can't answer that, it's the end of the debate.

Thay are plainly different.
Why do you keep insisting that the force that holds me in my chair is anything to do with electricity when experimentally it is known not to be?
As for your complaint that there's no direct evidence for gravitons perhaps I should point out I have never seen a photon.

It's a pity that you didn't seem to understand the point I tried to make earlier.
You made some claim that this
"In light of all of this: With all of our modern technical enlightenment, can we truly believe that a theoretical thing called “gravity” is a genuine “force”, and more extravagantly speaking, a “universal gravitational constant (“force”)”, if we do not even state exactly what universally “provides” (causes) this theoretical “force”, within and between separated objects?" "
In some way demonstrated that gravity didn't exist.

All I did was swap the words about and use exactly the same argument to prove that electricity doesn't exist.
Of course the argument doesn't show that electricity doesn't exist; it's a lousy argument.
It's just as lousy at showing that gravity doesn't exist.


"Is anyone out there, who will try to come forward with completely plausible answers?"

Yes but you will not listen to them because you can not or will not accept that gravity is real.
The answer is that gravity atracts all things towards each other with a force proportional to their masses and to the reciprocal of the square of the distance between them. This force is carried by gravity waves or gravitons in just the same way that the electromagnetic force is carried by photons. Because gravity is something like 34 orders of magnitude weaker than the em force these individual gravitons or gravity waves are very difficult to observe.

" Without a transfer of force between the lead balls by some existing known form of energy (like electromagnetism), the lead balls could not have moved at all."
Yes, that force is called gravity. Why can't you accept this?

"I make these points because there is no factually-proven (non-hypothetical) scientific evidence that any ‘force’ can perform ‘distant ‘work’ without utilizing one of the known and commonly recognized forms of ‘energy’ as a ‘transfer vehicle’"
One of the recognised forms of energy is gravitational potential energy. It's how they store energy in a holowed out Welsh mountain by pumping water up it when electricity is cheap and letting it out (through a turbine) when theres a peak in demand.
The fact that you don't recognise gravity is your problem. It still works perfectly well.


This "Which one of the real (non-hypothetical) energy forms is the force-conveying ‘vehicle’ of gravity, over any distance?" is a meaningless question.
The answer is that, whatever form the carrier of this force may take we find it helpful to give it a name. That name is the graviton.
We might not know a lot about the properties of the graviton but we sure as hell know it exists because it's what holds us in our chairs and keeps the moon in orbit. There's no sensible question that something keeps the orbits sorted out and there's no way (as I have pointed out before and which you seem to glibly ignore) that it's electromagnetic.

"If no existing energy transfers a local ‘force’ (“gravity”), no distant work can be done without a force-transfer? Right?"
Yes, but since there is a means to transfer the energy-0 the graviton (whatever it might be) then there's no problem with transfering a force and hence doing work.
Again , because we know that work is done- for eample there are tidal power stations, we know that there must be some agent that carries the energy; once again we call it the graviton. and once again we are certain it exists for the very reason you have give. If it didn't then the energy couldn't be transfered.

That means that this "If no existing energy transfers any local ‘force’, gravity can be neither a local nor a universal phenomenon? Right?"
doesn't mean anything because we know that there is a means of transfering the energy- it's called gravity (as it happens it's universal)

"Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*"
OK for a start most of the particles, or even planets and stars in the universe have practically no weight. Weight is the extent to which the earth's gravity attracts them.
If you meant is it reasonable to say that the mass of something is sum of the masses of its component parts then yes, I think it is reasonable.
Mass is some sort of measure of "how much stuff there is" It seems fair enough to me that the amount of stuff in a couple of apples is the ammount of stuff in 1 apple added to the ammount of stuff in the second apple.
Whether you like it or not there is the observed fact that the 2 apples atract each other in the way I spcified earlier. I can't see how it would be reasonable not to include this attractiveness effect.

"If all matter is influenced by an electromagnetic field, is it not likely that universal interactions are electromagnetic?"
No it's not because (for the umpteenth time) we know how electicity causes atraction and, unless the objecta are carrying a huge charge then it simply doesn't explain the observations. Also we know that the objects are not charged.

Now, never mind anything else. Until you understand that six isn't the same as 2 there's no point in carrying this on any further.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 05/11/2007 23:38:01
Fleep. your ideas like many others like you are based on some fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics reinforced by simple thought experiments based on familiar earth based engineering.  The "force" of gravity requires no continuous source of energy to maintain it.  because that does not in itself dissipate energy. It is only bodies moving in a gravitational field that can convert the potential energy of their own mass into kinetic energy by accelerating due to the "force" associated with the distorted space time.  If you must have an energy source for the creation of the field, you could say it comes from the potential energy given up by the assembly of sufficient atoms in a small space to distort the fabric of space time and create the gravitational field but  in doing so they liberate kinetic energy which is radiated away in the form of heat as happens in stars.  The fact that some stars can generate some more energy by fusing the nuclei of atoms just helps the stars shine for longer.  A universe in which nuclear fusion cannot happen would still contain stars!
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 07/11/2007 22:29:09
Hi;

Thanks for the comments. This answer is to BC and Soul Surfer.

(BC said): Do you understand that something that falls as the sixth power of the distance (like the electrostatic force between two uncharged bodies) is not, and can not be, the same as something that falls as the square of the distance (like the attraction observed between massive objects noted by Cavendish and many since)? Really, if you can't answer that, it's the end of the debate. Thay are plainly different.

Of course I do, but if gravity does not produce identical effects at every scale level of size and/or mass, then it cannot be “universal”.

You cannot reasonably expect me to compare the results between the Newtonian and Coulomb math. “The gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”. The math of Coulomb could make no sensible claim if it included anything about the “proportionality to the product of their masses”. Of these two similar mathematical formulae, if only one is constructed with an extra theoretical factor within it, which causes the gravity equation to arrive at a different answer, then they are not open to valid comparison.
 
You continue to insist that (merely hypothetical) ‘gravitons’ and/or ‘gravity waves’ are a true and actual form of known Physical Laws by which a force is conveyed to where its work is done. They are hypothetical things only! Electricity, like all the other energy forms of known Physics, works the same across the entire universe, and that’s why I’m pushing it.

The big loser is something that science calls “potential energy”. Anything that has the ability or the possibility of being or doing something else (but doesn’t ever do it), is not that “something else”, and might never be. The universe has the potential energy contained within it, to blow itself to smithereens, but unless it happens, nothing has been “converted” to the physical energy form(s) that would accomplish it. Any conversion from potential has to mean that a known physical form of energy, like electricity, light, chemical, or even nuclear energy becomes the conveyor to the “jobsite”. Those are not my rules. “In physics, work is the amount of energy transferred by a force.” – (says Wikipedia). The transferring vehicle has to be one of the known forms of energy. You can't go making up a new theoretical form of energy.
 
So, I continue to insist that all of the math, plus these hypothetical things like ‘gravitons’/’gravity waves’, and even lame conveniences like “potential energy” have been invented to tailor-make “bridges” between the inexplicable voids in the whole theory of gravitation. Math can be constructed to do anything science needs it to do. The math proves nothing, except how intelligently clever some mathematicians can be in fabricating “explanations” for the unanswerable anomalies that constantly pop up in Newton’s Gravitation Theory.

Wikipedia says: Electrical resistivity (also known as specific electrical resistance) is a measure of how strongly a material opposes the flow of electric current. A low resistivity indicates a material that readily allows the movement of electrical charge.

If we go back to Cavendish’s experiment, and the fact that he used lead, which has a characteristic electrical resistivity at a “standardized” temperature of 20 deg. C., (whose coefficient changes with temperature change), and the fact that all other metals he could have used would have produced a different measurement of distance between the variety of ball materials, perhaps we should be asking questions about the veracity of his method. Of course now, it will be pointed out that science's electric resistivity tables were produced in a situation where an electrical current was being applied to the materials, and is thus irrelevant, since no charge was physically applied by Cavendish. Not so, in my opinion.

Every elemental combination produces a different covalent radius, which also means that every different element used to make a set of test-balls for a “Cavendish experiment” should produce a different effect in the distance between the test-balls. If gravity was a constant non-discriminating force, the measurements should be the same for all the elements, but the electrical influence of covalence must surely make the space between the test-balls of every element (or any elemental mix) measure differently. Which “attractiveness” is only a convenience feature? If I had to choose between “gravitation” and valence, I would not select valence as the “convenience”, because valence is a real, and living thing.

If gravity really is a force, it could not discriminate between materials, or we could not apply it as a single rule by adding it as a ‘property’ to the atomic weights of masses, thus unequally affecting the various sum totals of the atomic weights in different masses. (See below**). Valence is, after all, an electrical function, and covalent radii will differ from one to another, revealing differences of distance between sets of test-balls made of different materials.

Electrical resistivity and valence are obviously the makers of a multiplex of diversities that make every two or more materials react differently when considered in proximities to each other. There can be no ‘gravitational constancy’, since there cannot possibly be a universally identical “state of valence” in every material composition. What is thought to be “gravity” would seem to actually be electricity at work. The electrons are doing the electrical work, all the way from each individual atom, out to the exposed electrical surface effect that stands in proximity to its material ‘neighbour(s)’, (and/or, positive or negative charges that an object may casually encounter, as in spatial "falling situations").

** (I said in my last message): "Matter is a sum of bare atomic weight(s). Is it sensible to supplement/define an article’s sum atomic weights by adding an “attractiveness effect”?*"

(BC said): If you meant is it reasonable to say that the mass of something is the sum of the masses of its component parts then yes, I think it is reasonable.
 
I then have to read your answer as saying that you think it is reasonable to enhance the mass’s actual sum (scalable) components by adding a “gravitation factor”. I obviously disagree, because to apply anything, even a  “gravitational influence” as a “property” to each and every atom in the mass, would be to increase the bare numerical sum of all the component atoms that form that mass. An enhanced sum of the atomic components would not be a true scaling/equivalent representation of that mass. By the addition of a theoretical “property” (called “gravity”) to a mass the size of Jupiter for example, the “scaling weight” of that planet, (if we could actually weigh it), becomes significantly skewed on the plus side. Thus, the inclusion of gravity as a “property” of the word “weight”, has made the work of calculating the “true sum total atomic weight” of anything in the universe an almost impossible job, because science can always fall back on the dictionary meaning of the word “weight” itself, which, as said, unfairly includes gravity as a “property”, and thus, as a theoretical component of “weight” itself.

(BC said):   Mass is some sort of measure of "how much stuff there is" It seems fair enough to me that the amount of stuff in a couple of apples is the amount of stuff in 1 apple added to the amount of stuff in the second apple. Whether you like it or not there is the observed fact that the 2 apples attract each other in the way I specified earlier. I can't see how it would be reasonable not to include this attractiveness effect.

I like apples too. Why would apples not like apples, as lead balls like other lead balls, etc.? I wonder what would have happened if Cavendish used an apple and a lead ball(?)
Nothing is attracted by gravity, in my opinion. Things fall identically through space and differently through atmospheres. When things encounter charges, they are affected in different ways, depending on either the negativity or the positivity of the charge(s), and the elemental composition of the things. When things get captured by natural phenomena like ring currents, they might get tied into orbits, or even caused to change direction. They might be attracted, or they might be repulsed. Game over. Nothing called “gravity” is needed at all.

I’m not trying to get philosophical here, but no logical mind can construct a single valid syllogism that includes both theory and truth, and end up proving that theory equals truth. The answer would consistently be “False”. The word “gravity” belongs neither in the definition of the word “weight”, nor in the mathematics that make gravity seem real, and yet the world ignores this unfair dichotomy that effectively locks out any simple means to attack the dictionary definition of the word “weight”. That divisive mating of truth and theory defends the right of science to justify (as logical), all of their (theoretical) mathematics and hypothetical component factors that relate to the theory of gravitation.

I’m not trying to be difficult. The number of people who believe that Newton was entirely wrong about gravity is legion. They’re all over the net and around the world. Why do you suppose people keep challenging his otherwise spotless genius? Everybody makes mistakes, and sometimes, they are whoppers.

I know of course, that I have probably firmly entrenched myself as a member of the “crackpot fringe”, particularly in the eyes of those who only construct rebukes, even as they are reading and rejecting, word after word, all things that do not match their logical defenses. If I didn’t really care about that effect, it would never have occurred to me to mention it, so I’m obviously not seeking a tirade of acknowledgements that have determined it to be pie-throwing time. Determination in the face of adversity is (sadly) my style, and I hope the real thinking minds can rise above their immediate inclinations, and keep this most difficult debate going onwards in a noble and gentile fashion. I have great respect for the homeland of education, courtesy, and inspiration that Britain has historically shown itself to be. My efforts in North American forums have met with almost no appreciable evidence of such traits, but I won’t express the reasons why I have come to feel this way. I have to live here.

P.S – All Canadians are not this stubborn

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/11/2007 08:38:17
Fleep you are neglecting the work of Eotvos on gravity.  He vastly refined Cavendish's seminal experiment and measured the gravitational attraction between balls of many different materials with and without a vast range other materials between them to show that the gravitational effect of materials is totally independant of the material and only dependant on the mass and is independant of the interposition of any sort of screening material.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2007 19:55:32
A few points
First
"You cannot reasonably expect me to compare the results between the Newtonian and Coulomb math. “The gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”. The math of Coulomb could make no sensible claim if it included anything about the “proportionality to the product of their masses”. Of these two similar mathematical formulae, if only one is constructed with an extra theoretical factor within it, which causes the gravity equation to arrive at a different answer, then they are not open to valid comparison."

The two equations are
Coulomb
F=E0  (Q1. Q2) /R^2
and
Newton
F=G (M1. M2) /R^2

Both have exactly the same form; there's just as much a fudge factor in one as there is in the other. If one is reasonabl;e then so is the other.

Secondly
The Coulomb formula above has no relevance whatsoever because in things like tides we are not talking about charged bodies.

Thirdly
As far as I can see all the stuff you have written is nonsense.
For example "I obviously disagree, because to apply anything, even a  “gravitational influence” as a “property” to each and every atom in the mass, would be to increase the bare numerical sum of all the component atoms that form that mass. "
Balls!
Before I was born I held no ownership over anything.
Now I own a house. I have threfore added to each atom of that house the property of "belonging to me". Plainly this doesn't affect the atome themselves.
Anyway I'm not adding the propert "gravitational attraction" to mass; they are two sapects of the same thing.


"The number of people who believe that Newton was entirely wrong about gravity is legion. They’re all over the net and around the world."
A million lemmings cant be wrong.

It doesn't matter how many of them there are. Until they can tell me what moved the balls in Cavendish's experiment they cannot be taken seriously and nor can you.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 10/11/2007 16:18:58
Hi guys;

Newton's law of universal gravitation:

F = G m1m2/r2

where F is the force that mass one and mass two exert on each other, m1 and m2 are their respective masses, r is the distance between their centers of mass, and G is the constant of proportionality that is called the Gravitational Constant.

So, this is an “attractive force” that is allegedly “exerted” between two masses, without any explanation of how a “force” can be a form of energy. This “exertion” (by definition), defies even the scientific definition of "energy" that includes a mandatory prerequisite for “work” to be done, which is a transference of force by any one of the known physical energy facilities.

Coulomb’s Law says:

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

The Scalar form of the equation shown is not exactly what you stated it to be, but we will ignore that you omitted the mass difference fraction in your equation , and point out that since we must know the direction of the ring current , the full vector form of the equation must be used.  (Look it up please. It’s easier than trying to recreate all the equation symbols here.)

See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law   - (Scalar form)

It says: If one does not require the specific direction of the force, (which we must know, if a ring charge is operating between the Earth and the moon),  then the simplified, scalar, version of Coulomb's law will suffice. A positive force implies a repulsive interaction, while a negative force implies an attractive interaction.

But, we must use the Vector form to illustrate my hypothesis, so:

See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law   - (Vector form)

(Gravity implies an attractive force, but my contention is that a positive electromagnetic ring current is operating between two point charges in space between the Earth and the moon. It connects to the two bodies at two undiscovered points of reach of our respective electromagnetics.  Our magnetosphere is likely one of the two ends of the ring current. The point charge in space on the moon end of the ring current repulses the magnetic positivity of the moon, and the point charge on the Earth end repulses the magnetic positivity of the Earth. At the Earth end, the repulsion creates a burden on our atmosphere, which pushes down the surface of the ocean as the moon passes overhead from East to West.)

It seems strange, that if the tides are governed by the “gravitational pull of the moon,” and since the distance between the Moon and the Earth is very slightly increasing over time, that a force which is supposed to “attract”, is separating the two bodies. It sounds more to me like a form of real energy is   keeping them separated, and is responsible for the widening gap between them.  (It makes me think again about how Epimetheus and Janus are a mere 50 km apart when they trade orbits, yet they never collide. I will not remind you what your comment was when I once brought that up before.)

I was attempting to make a list of all the theoretical variations and anomalies that can be found in reference materials about the problems with gravity, but the task is much too daunting.

How can we have a “gravitational constant” if there is no gravity in the vacuum of space? If gravity is a “constant” force, how can we have “microgravity” and “supergravity”? Where is all this “dark matter” that might have helped to support the case of gravity? How can this pretender exist in the presence of genuine forms of energy that actually deliver work from a parent force of physically known and accepted origins? Stuff can fall through an atmosphere, or it can fall differently through a vacuum, all without the "benefit" of gravity.

 If gravity just sits there as a dictionary version of “force”, and has to go to a distant dictionary version of “work, then what form of a dictionary version of “energy” will deliver it? Science plays fast and loose with the apparently multi-talented abilities of “potential energy”, but if it’s only potential, then it’s nothing at all. Science also has bastardized “force” as if it was itself a form of energy, and even as “work” that is actually being done, without a real energy even being involved. They even call it a “property”  of matter. An imaginary “gravity” just sits there, inside every particle of matter, skewing its genuine “weight”, by supplementing the sum total of every mass’s (bare) atomic “weights”.

You keep telling me to prove that something other than gravity makes the Cavendish experiment an apparent success, and I keep giving you valid possibilities that you expect me to creatively explain to confirm my hypothesis. Science hasn’t even completed the final studies of the properties of atoms, so even if I ever could, I wouldn’t bother, because it would fall on deaf ears everywhere.  Science might never try to rewind the clock and go about dismantling everything that has been fabricated for convenience sake only, over the last 300 odd years.

As long as it takes for science to absolutely explain the role the role of Negative Pressure, a proven universal phenomenon discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, then I have to go with possibilities other than a fairy tale called “gravity”.

Of course, all of this will be labelled “nonsense” as well, because this lazy society has a sort of dead gravity of its own. It’s called, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The old term “laissez-faire” appears to have widened to accept even scientific proclivities.

P.S. – Not really related, but see the neat pictures numbered 1, 2, 3, at:

  http://www.designboom.com/contest/view.php?contest_pk=7&item_pk=3460&p=2

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2007 17:13:49
What moved the balls?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 10/11/2007 23:33:32
Hi BC;

What moved the balls?

hmmm.... Was it a kick in the ...? How the heck do I know? You and science don't really know. You're all working off an old theory that doesn't have any believable evidence either. Think about the questions that I posed and maybe you will come to a realization that gravity just isn't needed or real.

I always appreciate your continuing negativity, because it forces me to go further afield to make gravity look stupid.

Thank you so much my friend.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 11/11/2007 10:52:46
You're talking total unscientific rubbish fleep what you say is innacurate and does not work.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2007 12:36:24
Fleep, there is plenty of evidence- from the dropped baby's rattle success of the space exporation. Some of the clearest evidence comes from things like Cavendish's experiment.
The problem is not a lack of evidence; the problem is your inability to accept what most people see as obvious.
The fact is that the balls move. We call that effect gravity. We make theories about it such as it having an inverse square law. We do experiments and verify that law.
What's to debate? There's no question it's real.
Unless and until you can come up with a plausible answer to my question in my last post then you are not helping anyone, not even yourself. All you are doing is wasting time and bandwidth.
Incidentally , the reason we can have supergravity and microgravity is because the gravity depends on how much mass is nearby. It's not difficult so I wonder if you really can't understand it or if you are trolling. I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's the latter.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: johnbrandy on 12/11/2007 02:52:56
I am not at all versed in the physics of gravity, but was it not an exact understanding of the physics of gravity, as discovered and elucidated by Newton, that determined precisely the position that was necessary to put satellites into orbit around the earth and other planets. If these principles of physics were not true, I am sure scientist would have discounted them years ago, and satellites would have drifted into space, or came plunging into the earth. I am not aware of any reputable scientist that has denied the existence of gravity. Certainly gravity exist. Why, because we can calculate and predict its behavior. Therefore, the real question being posed is not whether gravity exist or not, but what is its true nature and characteristics. This is my "unqualified" opinion.     
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2007 19:38:56
Thanks John,
We told Fleep about satelites in this thread and an earlier one (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7375.0)
Perhaps he will listen this time.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 12/11/2007 20:41:16
Hi guys;

I again must restate that there is no point trying to determine the origin of any actual energy that moved the lead balls in Cavendish's experiment, if the subatomic particle role questions have not all been answered by science. Their explanation is incomplete, and mine can not be completed either, until they have nailed the atom all the way down to its tiniest component, and its role. No one can satisfy your demand, before then.

Incidentally, none of you have identified a single site where I could read exactly what form of energy conveyed the "force" in either of the (Cavendish OR Eotvos) balls to perform the work in the other.

So, here we go again...

Wiki - "Absolute negative pressures occur in some theories in physics. See dark energy, equation of state (cosmology) and negative mass."

Wiki - (Positive) "pressure is defined in terms of a force applied over an area. In many physics problems we consider idealised situations; typically a single, positive ("pushing") force acting on a surface."

So, what do we have here?
 
After their earliest comments of excitement, the Supernova Legacy Team’s leader, Dr. Ray Carlberg and the rest of the team have been become extremely careful not to expand on their initial confirmed discovery of “negative pressure/dark energy” that was announced in November 2005. They are supposed to be publishing a hopefully full report of confirmation by sometime in 2008.

“The current paper is based on about one-tenth of the imaging data that will be obtained by the end of the survey. Future results are expected to double or even triple the precision of these findings and conclusively solve several remaining mysteries about the nature of dark energy.”

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/051122-1839.asp

Though we must wait for the team’s report until 2008, I will jump the gun and explain that I am offering a hypothesis to explain how gravity is either not real, or can be explained in another way, using (in part), the above team’s confirmation of Einstein’s Cosmological Constant/ negative Pressure.

I will use a small model with which to begin, so we can imagine a universe that is a “cubic mile” in size, and in which all matter within it is scaled to the necessary sizes that will make everything relevant, if size needs to be a consideration at all. Mass will not be relevant here, since everything that exists will simply be another “object” that exists in the model.

Now we will open all the sides of the “box” and “flatten” our universe in such a way that everything that was “in the box” can still be seen on our flat “sheet”, in the style of a Mercator projection.  We will construct a grid pattern on the sheet for convenience sake, and the grid pattern in which our own galaxy is contained will then be projected forward to be a single “worksheet” of one square mile in size and adjusted scale, remembering of course, that this one sheet is also representative of the workings of the entire universe behind it. All this scaling down only brings us to thinking in small scale since the whole universe is too daunting to even imagine.

Each square of the grid of our worksheet is filled with negative pressure. All matter within the grid squares exists upon the universal “backdrop” of negative pressure, because it is a constant. It is the basis of the Cosmological Constant that Einstein theorized, and which the above team confirmed in November 2005. It is the long-theorized “dark energy” that science has been seeking and a fundamental prerequisite for the existence of a static universe.

The negative pressure is a negative energy, which was formerly believed to be an impossible state in which energy could exist. The atoms of the 94 natural elements are positively charged. (We will not need to specifically segregate different forms of atom types such as isotopes, since they are known to exist, but their existence is not needed for reference in this model.)

Wiki –  “Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamical equilibrium to contract.”

(Ergo – the inclusion of “gravity”, a theoretical “force”, interfered with Einstein’s mathematical effort to formulate general relativity. He had to find something that would allow a bogus factor (gravity) to fit in his equations, so he theorized his Cosmological Constant, which now has been proven to be a real form of what was first called (dark) energy.

This constant backdrop/platform on which all matter exists and is undeniably able to perform any of its natural functions, must also support the existence of anti-matter, which it obviously permits, by using a totally different set of “rules” than matter does.

 Wiki -Naturally occurring production (of antimatter)

“In particle physics and quantum chemistry, it extends the concept of the antiparticle to matter, whereby antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example an anti-electron, (a ‘positron’, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an anti-hydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing of matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing of antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The particles resulting from matter-antimatter annihilation are endowed with energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original matter-antimatter pair, which is often quite large.

There is considerable speculation in science as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

(See my other theory in this forum: “Planets are made in black holes”.)

Antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the solar system) produce minute quantities of antimatter in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. It may similarly be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur (principally the interaction of relativistic jets with the interstellar medium). The presence of the resulting antimatter is detectable by the gamma rays produced when it annihilates with nearby matter. (Relativistic jets can develop around the accretion disks of neutron stars and stellar black holes.")

Questions – If matter exists within a “force”, which is a “gravitational constant”, then what "constant" governs the behaviour of antimatter? If gravity really is a “property” of matter, what “force” is the anti-gravitational constant”? Where is antimatter's 'anti-force'? Dark energy (negative pressure) can’t be a “second-layer constant”, because the gravity is only a “force”, but Negative Pressure is an ‘energy”, capable of conveying “potential energy” to its work-sites. Only one of the two is confirmed to be a constant, and that one is not “gravity”, (OR 'anti-gravity', for the case of antimatter).

How can one state of matter contain a theoretical property, particularly as a property of (the word) "weight", if its antithesis (antimatter) has none of its own, and cannot subscribe to an opposite rule, because that opposite rule does not exist? If matter and antimatter mutually destroy one another and become energy, then what kind of energy has been formed? It could be called “nuclear” only if just matter is involved.

Wiki says, as above; “The particles resulting from matter-antimatter annihilation are endowed with energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original matter-antimatter pair, which is often quite large.

 “Wiki says;  “The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity.”

Why would “gravity-laden masses” beside an object’s path have no attractive speed-reducing effects at all?

So the matter collided with the antimatter, and performed that ‘work’, and the potential energy was released, instigating an ‘acceleration’ to move the high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle-antiparticle pairs. The ‘work’ of that collision was the creation of a kinetic energy. The ‘force’ of the collision is now being conveyed as a product (by that kinetic energy) until the photons or other particle-antiparticle pairs hit something else, where more ‘work’ gets performed. If they hit nothing, they just keep falling continually in a straight line through the void, at the originally initiated speed of acceleration, and without another collision, the energy conveying the “product” is not “gradually used up”.

Now if any ‘gravitational attraction’ existed anywhere close to the falling-path of the ‘products’ of the first collision, that straight line should be influenced by  some directional change(s), even if it happens over a long period of time, but it reportedly does not. Where is the (any) nearby ‘gravity’? Is it sleeping, or is there no gravity at all?

Objects that fall in straight lines through space are not being ‘attracted’ to anything at all. If they change direction, it is solely because of (e.g.), a chance encounter with some other ‘local” fixed energy field, such as a ring current that is conveying energy from one point charge to another, as a regular motion of its static and unchanging job. That is an intimidating force. Such a chance encounter is a real reason why meteors are pushed into and invade our atmosphere, unless their approach angle is too low-pitched and they just seem to “bounce off” our atmosphere. Their direction did change, but ‘gravity’ did not attract it to us at all, because there appears to be no logical reason to me, why gravity should even be suspected to exist.

See    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

If it were possible to see the entire universe as a “Constant Grid”, universal expansion might be simpler to calculate and understand. Knowing that we have a constant platform (of negative pressure) on which to construct a virtual grid of any practical size, perhaps many super-computers could be assigned the task of producing such answers. We know that things are happening that defy (what else), the Law of Gravitation for example, yet we have no explanation for all of them. When any are noted, someone sets about creating a new equation, if it can be done, as with the Earth’s tides, or else we just make a theory-based excuse and let it go, like we do with Janus and Epimetheus.

See   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn

“Saturn has an intrinsic magnetic field that has a simple, symmetric shape—a magnetic dipole. Its strength at the equator—0.2 Gauss—is approximately one twentieth than that of the field around Jupiter and slightly weaker than Earth's magnetic field. As a result the cronian magnetosphere is much smaller than jovian and extends slightly beyond the orbit of Titan. Most probably, the magnetic field is generated similarly to that of Jupiter—by currents in the metallic-hydrogen layer, which is called a metallic-hydrogen dynamo. Similarly to those of other planets, this magnetosphere is efficient at deflecting the solar wind particles from the Sun. The moon Titan orbits within the outer part of Saturn's magnetosphere and contributes plasma from the ionized particles in Titan's outer atmosphere.”

The gas ball bulges at the equator, and the poles are flattened. The rings surround the equator in regimented bands.  So, are the matter-laden rings of this gas-ball planet held in one place by electromagnetic energy between the ball itself and the magnetosphere of Saturn? Why did all the debris not go flying into the gas-ball itself? Do all of those gas molecules not have gravitational “pull”, or is there no such attraction for some reason?

All the effects described in this hypothesis involve 'point-charged' situations. Coulomb gets the math jobs.
 
If I kept looking, I am sure I could find many more questions that ‘gravity’ simply does not answer. Does no one else ever examine these anomalies, or are we just too comfortable in the security blanket of an impregnable mindset?

Sorry for the long blurb. I am often left with little choice but having to say more than enough, which probably still will not be adequate for the diehards.

Thanks for your patience.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 12/11/2007 22:19:15
The connection of quotes from wikipedia with garbage text does not explain anything.  What you have just written is total rubbish from any point of view. It is so disjointed it cannot even be refuted.  I have noted that you use the term "ring currents" quite a lot.  This is a term not used by others and seems to bear an important relationship to the ideas that you appear to be trying to explain.  Perhaps you might like to explain clearly, logically and simply, precisely what you mean by this and its relationship to the reasons why planets stay in their orbits and things drop to the ground in the absence of what most rational people consider to be the presence of matter creating small distortions in the three dimensional structure of space ie Gravity.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 13/11/2007 03:15:51
With all due respect Sir, your lack of love for courtesy most seriously disappoints me. It would certainly seem to me that a truly unbiased (retired) person of credentials would generally be more prepared to extend a greater effort than the tiny consideration that you allowed me for the tremendous amount of effort I continuously expend.
 
In only two hours, you read, instantly rejected, typed and returned a caustic reply, all while failing to even try to review any of the sites that I provided, which would have helped to fill in some of the gaps that I left, primarily out of a consideration that I could not burden anyone with more text than they were prepared to read. I expected that you either already knew, or at least would review something of what I provided.

Here are some sites to review about “ring currents”, (the generic term that I use),if you wish to continue at all. I must say that I will not bother to reply to any more such negative missives.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824130101.htm
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Fld.Alnd.Currents/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

No hard feelings, right?

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2007 19:47:09
"I again must restate that there is no point trying to determine the origin of any actual energy that moved the lead balls in Cavendish's experiment"
I didn't ask for the energy source; I asked what the force was. I know it's gravity by deffinition but you say that doesn't exist.
As Soul Surfer says, much of what you say doesn't make any more sense than that quote.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 14/11/2007 23:58:08
I am quite familiar with plasma currents of this nature and the articles to which you refer.  Whilst these are interesting things they do not exert forces that are significant with the energy of motion of planets and satellites.  Also the directions and variations of thes forces on charged bodies throughout space bear no resemblence to the simple central force that is generated by a gravitating object.  So I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider such a process as offering any alternative to the currenly generally accepted theory of universal gravitiation.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: johnbrandy on 16/11/2007 05:16:19
Fleep, "right or wrong", your efforts and erudition are most impressive, and genuinely appreciated. I apologize, I am not prepared to follow your thoughtful arguments. I respect your courtesy. May I  suggest that your interpretation, or anyones interpretations, of experiments that do not agree with the theory or principles of gravity do not necessarily disprove the existence of gravity. Must we not consider the preponderance of evidence for the existence of gravity. Even gravity does not operate in a vacuum. In other words, gravity, or its' effects can be influenced by other forces. It is the task of physics to discover the relationships between these seemingly disparate forces. It amazing to me how much we still have to learn about the dynamics of fluids. Specifically, is seem to me that "large body gravity", and gravitational effects, observed near the surface of the earth can be subject to entirely different effects, yet to be characterized. I suspect that these potential effects constitutes the confusion and "arguments" herein. This is my unqualified opinion.         
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 18/11/2007 18:06:57
Hi;

Answering to specific questions by Bored Chemist and Soul Surfer –

I have to believe that you both have reviewed and understand the basic claims about the confirmed discovery of Negative Pressure, and the ring currents that surround Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth. These discoveries do not refute gravity. They only extend the amount of human knowledge to a higher plane. The fact that my hypothesis tries to attribute what is historically known as ‘gravity’ to another possibility can cause no dangerous threat to what is almost globally accepted as real.
 
I respectfully ask that you read this very carefully, without prejudice, because if and when science absolutely proves that Gravitational Theory can be made into a Law, then I too will be very satisfied. I don’t just have a mindless “hate” for gravity. I only seek to examine all possibilities.

Bored Chemist- From Messg. 139126

“I didn't ask for the energy source; I asked what the force was. I know it's gravity by definition but you say that doesn't exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#Measurement_of_the_gravitational_constant

Wiki says: “gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to measure it indirectly.” (e.g. – against another (real) fundamental such as electromagnetics)

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

Wiki says: “The modern quantum mechanical view of the three fundamental forces (all except gravity) is that particles of matter (fermions) do not directly interact with each other, but rather carry a charge, and exchange virtual particles (gauge bosons), which are the interaction carriers or force mediators. For example, photons are the mediators of the interaction of electric charges; and gluons are the mediators of the interaction of color charges.”

Of the 4 “Fundamental  Interactions”, only gravitation has an unproven/hypothetical mediator, called a “graviton”, which is theorized to be infinite in range, like electromagnetism. So, if science itself has not yet nailed down anything more than a hypothetical “mediator”, (energy delivery system), why would I try to come up with or create any other fundamental force than “electromagnetic”, whose range is infinite? I would be daft to invent one of my own.
The very second that I find out that ‘gravitons’ have been scientifically verified as real, all arguments against “gravitation” will collapse, and that includes my own hypotheses as well, and I too will be as happy as a clam.
=======================================================================================================

Soul Surfer – Messg. 138941

“I have noted that you use the term "ring currents", (etc). Perhaps you might like to explain clearly, logically and simply, precisely what you mean by this and its relationship to the reasons why planets stay in their orbits and things drop to the ground in the absence of what most rational people consider to be the presence of matter creating small distortions in the three dimensional structure of space i.e. Gravity.”

(I gave you the sites, and you answered as below.)

Soul Surfer –  Messg. 139445

“I am quite familiar with plasma currents, etc.  They do not exert forces that are significant with the energy of motion of planets and satellites.  Also the directions and variations of these forces on charged bodies throughout space bear no resemblance to the simple central force that is generated by a gravitating object.”
============================================================================================
 
OK – First, you asked “Why things drop to the ground (if no gravity)”– (see my following model)

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

My 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., up and down.
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' at the same pressure 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 32 fps/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 and pressure 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 (columnar) 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”.

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

Secondly, you asked “why planets stay in their orbits (if no gravity)”.

Explanation - (hypothesis)

(I remember the fundamental explanation/theory about what would happen if a powerful cannon was fired horizontally from a mountain-top and the cannonball went straight out of the atmosphere and fell into a secure “straight-line” orbit, and continued to circumnavigate a body without falling to the surface of the body. I use it to help envision the orbits of all of the moons and planets in our galaxy, and farther out, even to (just inside) the “plasmapause” of the universe, if there is one. )

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

Wiki says: “The Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) is the term for the Sun’s magnetic field carried by the solar wind among the planets of the Solar System.

Since the solar wind is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas. For example, it is highly electrically conductive so that magnetic field lines from the Sun are carried along with the wind. The dynamic pressure of the wind dominates over the magnetic pressure through most of the solar system (or heliosphere), so that the magnetic field is pulled into an Archimedean spiral pattern (the Parker spiral) by the combination of the outward motion and the Sun's rotation. Depending on the hemisphere and phase of the solar cycle, the magnetic field spirals inward or outward; the magnetic field follows the same shape of spiral in the northern and southern parts of the heliosphere, but with opposite field direction. These two magnetic domains are separated by a two current sheet (an electric current that is confined to a curved plane). This heliospheric current sheet has a similar shape to a twirled ballerina skirt, and changes in shape through the solar cycle as the Sun's magnetic field reverses about every 11 years.

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.”
==============================================================================================

The following, and all bodies in our solar system, are situated within the Interplanetary Magnetic Field.

Magnetic bodies in our Solar System that have moon(s) and an atmosphere:

Earth - 1 moon*, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Mars - 2 moons, and an atmosphere.  (Patchy magnetic surface on Mars.)
Jupiter - 62 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Saturn - 48 moons an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Uranus - 27 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere
Neptune - 13 moons, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Magnetic_field

 Wiki says: *Re our moon –“the largest crustal magnetizations appear to be located near the antipodes of the giant impact basins. It has been proposed that such a phenomenon could result from the free expansion of an impact generated plasma cloud around the Moon in the presence of an ambient magnetic field.”

(Don’t forget that we only see the one face of the moon, and that’s where most (31%) of the moon’s magnetism is located.)

(All of the orbiting bodies of our solar system are, in effect, “moons” of our sun, regardless of their features or “possessions”, and they all survive in the ambient magnetic field that the sun provides.

An observation:

Curiously, there are “regular” and “irregular” natural satellites. The latter, though ostensibly contained within a theatre where a “gravitational constant” is the current star, act strangely differently from “regular” satellites. I wonder why that would be so?  Electricity, on the other hand, is an actual, non-theoretical form of energy that allows different types of work to be performed, even all at one time in some cases. I fall back again, of course, on the dictionary definitions:
 
To summarize:

A ‘force’ transfers ‘work’, using ‘energy’.
A ‘transfer’ is the conveyance of that work to a new owner/destination.
To ‘convey’, is to transport, e.g. – by land, or sea, or outer space.
A ‘conveyance’, is a ‘vehicle’, (energy), which is employed to fulfill a ‘force-transfer’.
To employ energy to make a force-transfer from one place to another is to transfer ‘work’.

What do you suppose all of these universal electrical things are doing out there, if gravity already has every “job” taken care of? Science admits to knowing relatively little about things like the function of the Van Allen Belts, magnetospheres, and even the newly discovered “Negative Pressure” of the universe.

It has been confirmed that Einstein’s Cosmological Constant has been identified as the Negative Pressure that we formerly called “Dark Energy”.

Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?
 
A constant negative pressure might be the only background mediator that permits an equal and opposite reaction to occur, yet still retain the work within a “locality” where the work is needed to be done. Newton’s 3rd Law might be enabled in space, only by reason of the (newly discovered and confirmed) presence of Negative Pressure – i.e. – Newton’s Cosmologic Constant.

Have I made my hypothesis any clearer for you, please?

Thanks for your patience.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 20/11/2007 05:30:35
I respectfully ask that you read this very carefully, without prejudice, ...........,
I read this, considered the amount of work you have put into your posts, and thought I should give your ideas another chance. However, you then continued..
.... because if and when science absolutely proves that Gravitational Theory can be made into a Law,.....
This troubles me greatly. You seem to believe that theories become laws, that Laws are superior to theories. This troubles me because if you have such a basic misunderstanding of the mechanics of scientific methodology, what are the chances that you have correctly interpreted the mass of data you have considered? I wait your comments with interest.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2007 19:55:53
OK so I got another near random quote from wiki.
Let's see if I get a real answer this time.
Fleep, what moved the balls?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 22/11/2007 00:27:02
Hi BC:

What made the balls move?

We have traditionally reasoned that the attraction between separate “objects” can be attributed to “gravity”, and as we very well know from the Cavendish experiment and its copiers, the measurements of distance between two like objects of different sizes and/or types, do indeed produce answers.
 
Those experiments were intentionally conducted in environments where no man-made electrical fields could possibly prejudice the “natural function of gravity”. What they did not know at the times of those experiments is that they were already being conducted in the presence of an ongoing “influence”, both inside and outside the participating objects. Even matter we regard to be “non-magnetic” experiences a constant stream of neutrinos, regardless of which state of matter is involved.

Since the neutrinos were passing through both the gap between the objects and the objects themselves, everything involved in the aforesaid experiments might have in fact, been electromagnetically connected (to a miniscule degree), even under circumstances that were designed to be laboratory conditions.

Interactions involving neutrinos are generally mediated by the weak nuclear force.  There might have been an almost immeasurably tiny electrically neutral “bridge” between the two positive objects, from the first time the experiment was done, through all of its subsequent repetitions.

The “W” and “Z” bosons are said to interact with a neutrino, and since all the effects at and below the atomic level have not been fully mitigated, (as all the problems with gravity have not), any (non-gravitational) “attractive” aspect/possibility of such experimental encounters needs verification and more scientific explanation. A neutrino is real. A “graviton” is unproven.

All of this conjecture, like the hypothetical “graviton”, constitutes another mere hypothesis, which, as all lucid minds will realize makes them identically unproven.

All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 22/11/2007 15:37:29
Hi;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_medium

Neutrinos radiate in all directions from the sun, completely across our solar system, and assumedly beyond the plasmapause of our galaxy all the time. Neutrinos are particles, and having been conveyed by an energy transmission facility, they are mediated by the weak nuclear force in all matter where work is needed to be done, or has been elementally pre-assigned. They also pass completely through everything else, if nothing needs to be performed.

It is interesting to note from the first reference above, that “the concept of “medium” does not apply in a vacuum”. That conclusion apparently arose prior to the recent discovery of Negative Pressure, which has been confirmed to exist (November 2005), and to prove Einstein’s “Cosmological Constant” to be real.

Since N.P./”dark energy” is in fact a genuine thing, does it not then imply that it truly is, (or might be), a “transmission medium” that does in fact, operate universally and continuously within a vacuum? If this might be so, then Negative Pressure appears to be a much more logical answer to the workings of the universe, and not just a weak theoretical “force”, whose only way of being transmitted as energy is by a hypothetical particle called a “graviton”?

Why is this not a logical possibility please? (Even Newton believed in a "medium", and actually had an Aether theory.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Newtonian_.C3.A6ther

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2007 20:33:34
"All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?"
Count the questions you have asked on this page and see just how many I'm ignoring.
"why would I try to come up with or create any other fundamental force than “electromagnetic”, whose range is infinite? I would be daft to invent one of my own."
Because electromagnetism doesn't work. It's not universal and it only works for charged objects.

I already pointed this out and so when you asked it again I ignored it.

"What do you suppose all of these universal electrical things are doing out there, if gravity already has every “job” taken care of?"
I supose they are doing what electromagnetism always does ie not explaining the Cavendish experiement or the tides.
It's still electromagnetism. It still doesn't work, so I ignored it again.

Here's a more interesting one
"Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?"

OK for a start the idea of a cosmological constant might not be compatible with Newton (III). There's no reason why it should be after all a fair few of Newton's idesa bit the dust when Einstein got involved. But the real "question" you ask is what of the possibility .....?
Well what of it? There's no evidence for the sugestion. I might as well ask "what about the possibility that I'm God and I'm telling you gravity exists?
It just isn't a valid point.

Perhaps you can understand why I ignored it.


"Have I made my hypothesis any clearer for you, please?"
No.
I'm afraid I ignored this question too.
Which brings us back to your most recent question
"All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?"
To which my answer is "just as soon as you stop talking nonsense"; here are some examples (I'm not sure they are in the right order).

You have tried to blame electrostatic interactions until I pointed out that any charge would leak away. Then you tried to blame covalency until I pointed out that this was only applicable over very short distances- ie within a molecule.
Next to enter the party was the nuclear force- soon dispatched because it doesn't even have as big a range as the covalency. Somewhere along the line you mentioned London forces and after a while I convinced you that, since 6 isn't the same as 2, there was no way they were responsible.
Now you are tryint to implicate neutrinos- the most notable property of neutrinos is that they don't interact well with matter. Since they do practically nothing it's patently absurd to ascribe things like the tides or the Cavendish experiment to the. More absurd yet is to say "everything involved in the aforesaid experiments might have in fact, been electromagnetically connected " when neutrinos are not charged (the clue is in the name).
Even if it were a much bigger force you would have a problem. The sun is a major source of neutrinos. The effect of gravity would be different at night.

OK It's not neutrinos so what made the balls move?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 23/11/2007 18:37:24
Hi BC;

Certainly your return comments have often made me change directions and seek another possibility, because that’s why I’m asking questions in a forum like this one.  The cooperation and the answers are better, more intelligent, and (usually) less caustic than I can scare up in North American forums. Whenever you make me seek another possibility, that’s a good thing, even if I have to take a little abuse to get there.

The difference between our two approaches is that you seem forever unprepared to consider current discoveries. In support of my latest neutrino approach, I try look at everything coming down the pike. Current technology is vital to get the ancient questions answered. There is some interesting data here for example:  (I look for any key phrases and isolate them. I always do this and include seemingly relevant phrases when I prepare my next run at The Naked Scientists. I don’t just fire off unprepared thoughts.)

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

See the item – “Mars express looks at ionosphere.” (abbreviated below – see the site for complete text.))

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx
   
Mars and Earth both possess an ionosphere — a layer of ionized (electrically charged) particles — in their upper atmospheres. (Note that both have magnetospheres/ electrical switchboards, too.)

Solar radiation and particles in the solar wind split the atoms and molecules, releasing free electrons.
 
"We confirmed that the regions of high electron density are associated with strongly magnetized areas, especially south of the equator, near places where the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the surface" "On Earth, this situation is only found at the two magnetic poles. The interaction with the solar wind energizes the atmosphere and produces a population of free electrons."

MARSIS is expected to map the regions where the solar wind connects to the Martian magnetic field.
 
========================================================================================================

The above item is about solar wind, but identifies long-range electrical work being done. The article is very generally described, but I think it fortifies my belief about the work being done at the atomic level by neutrinos, (inside and maybe even outside solar systems and galaxies) right across the universe.

Here’s a replay of what you bounced back at me:

fleep had said:

"Now, if an equal and opposite reaction is mandatory under Newton’s 3rd Law, then it seems logical that if there are positive pressures in the void of space, then there must be a facility against which they can be “negatively balanced” when work is performed. If positivity presses against the nothingness of space, it has nothing against which it can be balanced. On the Earth, in an atmosphere, the 3rd Law is a snap to see and prove, and the same thing must apply on the other planets(and moons) listed above. In space, it’s easy to say that “lines” can go off into “infinity”, but what of the possibility that the universe is a closed vessel?"

BC said: (I’m answering each point in the brackets).

OK for a start the idea of a cosmological constant might not be compatible with Newton (III). (Now, THAT is illogical.) There's no reason why it should be, after all a fair few of Newton's ideas bit the dust when Einstein got involved. (But the 3rd Law remained untarnished, didn’t it?) But the real "question" you ask is what of the possibility .....? Well what of it? There's no evidence for the suggestion. I might as well ask, "what about the possibility that I'm God and I'm telling you gravity exists?” (But you’re not, and that’s another red herring.)

(Oh boy! Evidence? What evidence? If I’m only one of a few that don’t believe in gravity, do you suppose that science will realistically spend a dime to find something that will disprove another something that the world (might) have become habitually stuck with? Why do you suppose I’m trying to tweak a single authoritative mind into admitting that it looks like there really might be another answer (to “gravity”) out there?)

(You brought up God, so I’m suggesting another possibility, that maybe sometimes God only gives us the right question.)

Perhaps you can understand why I ignored it. (Yes, I do. Your mindset is scientifically typical.)

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

To close -

Yes,BC; as you say, the key is in the fact that they are neutral. If not, a neutrino would have to be operatively selective in the (positive or negative) electrical work it must do, depending on where the work needs to be done when the neutrinos arrive there.  By being neutral, it can handle either a positive or negative type of work, by being able to multi-task.

 A “force” cannot know what work it has to do. Energy is expended when a job needs to be done, and that generally implies the need for a “trigger”. Neutrinos certainly don’t know where they are going when they leave the sun, and some jobs out there need a charge and others do not. Maybe the elemental work to be done sets the decision-making “trigger”, so the neutrino has to be neutral when it arrives. It would then act either positively or negatively with the weak force, as the matter "instructs".

Maybe we don’t have to worry about “the gravity effect being different at night”, as you said, because there just might be no gravity anywhere. Electromagnetism does not have universal work, but it does operate and perform work where it is required. Where it’s not needed, nothing happens there. The (physical) energy form itself, like all other true energy forms, is universal in its availability for purpose.

OK It's not neutrinos so what made the balls move? (It was an electrical transfer by energy, because a “force” cannot travel without energy being expended. That is straight out of science’s own definitions.)

The relevant claims of my messages 140526 and 140572 still stand.

Thanks for your help.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 23/11/2007 22:41:06
Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behavour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 25/11/2007 20:19:07
Hi folks;

BC hasn't responded to my last, but SS said:

"Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behaviour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical."

Hmmmpf. Gravitation “seems” to be comfortable, so that’s the prominent old belief that science has for a working tool right now. It’s just like all the other ancient theories once seemed comfortable until they were ultimately disproved. Just like all the post-Newton things that have been disproved by science, either before or after their individual evaluations, they were not considered “nonsense”. They were based on what seemed to be logical considerations, and if they were logical enough, they might have been published, and someone else took a good look at them, because they were not “nonsense”. They had at least one element of possibility, and without question, a myriad of seemingly logical hypotheses have been buried by their own authors, without even having come to the light of others. Everyone makes mistakes in logic.

“Nonsense”, by definition, is the use of absurd or meaningless words or ideas. I choose to build my (possibly still unconnected) hypotheses on authoritative sources, and I provide those references wherever I can, so that others might consider them as “possible links” in the resolution of things (like “gravitation”), which remains but a theory after more than 300 years. If gravitation is ever completely proven to be an absolute truth, I will joyfully concede that I must have been hunting for a Loch Ness monster in the highlands.

I would be speaking “nonsense” had I set myself up to be an unapproachable “authority” on a subject that still has not been resolved by the best minds in the world. I am obviously not an "authority", and I know of no other human being who is an "absolute" on any subject. While my thoughts do not follow the constant track used by the academically elite, I know that learning is a progressive thing that cannot be turned off once one supposes that they have “mastered” themes that all the past and current genius of science has not yet resolved. Professional careers end only with death, not retirement.

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

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

A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure.

Extracted from section called “Characteristics”-

Birkeland currents can also interact; parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart. (Note that the electromagnetic force between the individual particles is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, just like the gravitational force); parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart.

See also:  http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html

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

Would someone please explain/justify (at least), the inverse square “coincidence” to me, and to the rest of the curious. We have the math, so we don't need it here. Someone apparently must know, (but have not disclosed), a complete and faultless logical answer to this question.

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: johnbrandy on 26/11/2007 02:38:03
Re:fleep. I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online, slightly reworded for this post. "Newton described in his "Opticks", the origin of the inverse square relationship. He examined the elements of circular motion, and applied his analysis to the moon and planets and noted that the radically directed force acting on a planet decreased with the square of its distance from the sun". Therefore, the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics. I am not sure if this is the explanation you are seeking, since it is readily available, if researched. That is the "explanation", in terms of its origin, as well as the fact that this relationship, in the context of gravitational mechanics, can predict, with the knowledge of relevant masses, forces and distance. This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity. Scientific knowledge and understanding are provisional, therefore it is unreasonable to ask for a "complete and faultless" explanation/justification for the inverse square relationship. The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding. You have every right to promulgate and defend your theory/s, and they are much appreciated. But as a scientifically learned individual you must realize they are only theories. Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others. Kahlil Gibran wrote in the "Prophet", "say not that I have found the truth, but rather I have found a truth". In other words, the ultimate truth alludes us. Therefore a degree of humility is necessary if we genuinely desire to learn and grow intellectually(and spiritually). Moreover, the mere fact that other forces exist, does not of necessity, invalidate gravity. If you are suggesting that gravity is more than mass attraction, that seems reasonable. To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play, is consistent with scientific understanding.But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid. Moreover, how reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events. After all, the understanding of gravity is bases upon and derived from certain celestial events. This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much? Thank you for allow me to participate.               
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 26/11/2007 19:26:04
Hi John;


I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online. ... the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics.
 
I own a full 25 volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica published over the years 1878 and 1885. Newton, (and most British philosopher/mathematicians) are well covered therein, (Vol. XVII, pages 438 – 449), and I know the history. Mid-way down page 441 begins the whole explanation. (De Coulomb gets a small vague, non-explicit column in the "D" book.) I hope you can lay your hands on the whole Newton history and of the inverse square development. Books like mine must still be available over there somewhere. Thanks for including it anyway.

This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity.

 Yes, perhaps in some ways it does. I’m trying to find out if the adaptation of the gravity theory-based Inverse Square Law to “point charges” in the vacuum of space (not on Earth), has been closely measured and confirmed to be consistent in enough circumstances to validate it as constantly equivalent in the way it has been applied, where currents and current “sheets and ropes” of innumerable types, shapes, sizes, and functional sources perform. Who knows what hidden understandings remain to be found; possibly even in the nature of “forces” that no one has ever even contemplated? I’m not saying it’s probable, but is it impossible? We don’t know enough yet about the “electrics” of the great vacuum, and realization is often a most painful form of discovery.

The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". That definition appears in none of my prominent dictionaries.

This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding.

There is no bias here. I would have to be mad to genuinely try to sabotage science. It would also be humanly impossible for anyone to execute such a pre-planned agenda on a grand scale.  What does that leave for my motive, except a great concern about the status quo? The bias is obviously in the resistance to my suggestions of potential change possibilities.

I openly admit that I do not believe in classical gravitation. I physically can see neither God nor gravitation, but I form and will publically admit and defend, (in the proper forum), my spiritual convictions, based on what I regard to be “evidence”). People happen to believe without adequately explaining the inconsistencies of gravity, which is supposed to be a “constant”. I can’t raise a real belief in it, because it is inconsistent and leaves many of my questions unanswered or with (some) implausible  replies. I keep saying I’ll be happy if I’m proven completely wrong. Why am I always asking for answers? I simply am trying to tweak other minds to look in the direction of other possibilities.

Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others.

My hypotheses are simply that, like a (hypothetical) “graviton”. Science pretends sometimes. Am I not allowed to employ (def.) “a supposition made as a basis for reasoning”? When I asked for a “complete and faultless” explanation of a particular gravitational anomaly, I was being unfair, because if gravity is only a theory, their answer can only be theoretical. Now that you make that plain, I am sorry for posing the question that way.

To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play is consistent with scientific understanding.

I keep saying that maybe they are.

But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid?

I keep saying that maybe they are not.

How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?

I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out.   

This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much?

Excuse me please. I would have sworn that my continuous claims, that I might be wrong, were screaming out that my opinion is unqualified, primarily because I must always provide authoritative sites and sources that my logic has been built upon. What I largely receive is denigrations that effectually condemn those authoritative sources, and then blame me for trying to “think outside the box”, which is the philosophical target of all modern enterprise. Who is the turtle here?

I have been driven to arrogance at times. I have been demeaning at times. I have been wrong at times. Mea maxima culpa. I will try to be more thoughtful in the manner of my delivery.

Thanks for your comments.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2007 20:51:40
I didn't respond because I'm still waiting for you to tell me what moved the balls.

Incidentally, you seem to be looking at ever smaller or shorter-range forces. That's presumably because the obvious ones have already been ruled out (electromagnetism, covalent interactions and such). Now you are looking at the really obscure stuff where the experiments are a bit marginal, even for today's technology.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The force of gravity is quite big enough and obvious enogh to have been measured all those years ago with relatively primitive equipment.
Why try to blame the effect on something that's scarcely measurable with today's technology?
One is simply a lot bigger than the other so they cannot be the same.

But, while I'm waiting
"How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?

I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out.  "
Science has been doing, in its way over the course of human history, quite a good job of predicting celestial events.
It's an odd definition of science that includes stonehenge but the predictions work just fine 4000 years on. Since gravity works that well, why should scince waste time looking for non existent forces?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: johnbrandy on 27/11/2007 02:19:12
Friend fleep, you indicated that the explanation I offered of the inverse square relation, and the definition of “coincidence”, are not consistent with the information contained in your encyclopedia or dictionaries, respectively.Firstly, "my" explanation of the inverse square relationship is clearly a synopsis, not a complete and detailed account. Such overviews do not discount, or ignore the details that completely explain the process by which the inverse square relationship was derived. Secondly, the mere fact that you could not find an exact definition for "coincidence",consistent with the one I presented, does not mean that the definitions you researched are materially different in their meaning or word sense. It is highly probable that these different definitions are close enough for present purposes. As well, you do not offer a different explanation or definition, which is absolutely necessary if you intend to question or refute the value, or significance of the information I presented.Therein, you are not speaking to the issue.If, as you directly imply, that my explanation and definition are inadequate, please provide details  as to their inappropriateness and provide correctives.In other words, please point out specifically where and how "my" explanation and definition fail.In addition, you have not logically demonstrated why the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. It is a contradiction, to agree, as you do, that the inverse square relationship is derived from observation of physical events, and at the same time suggest that the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. Further, I would suggest that the current, online version of the Britannic is more accurate than all, except the most current print version.Thank You for allowing me to participate.         
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 01/12/2007 14:32:19
Hi guys:

(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)

Pascal & Newton’s 3rd

Some might be familiar with Model 1, and if so, can skip past to the Introduction to Model 2. The suggested new Model 2 (below) has been extrapolated/patterned from my (heretofore non-criticized), Model 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 “Model  1 = Atmosphere of the Earth – Falling from 62 mi. – (A.k.a. – Karman Line).”

Purpose - 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., up and down.
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' at the same pressure 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 32 fps/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 and pressure 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 (columnar) 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”.

==========================================================================================================================
==========================================================================================================================
An introduction to Model #2:

There is an interrelationship between Pascal’s (Pressure) Law and Newton’s 3rd (equal and opposite reaction) Law, but the possible presence of “gravity” in matter confuses the issue. There could be valuable new scientific perspectives to be obtained by analysing any questions that will fall into place only after the following model/scenario has been completely considered. This is respectfully offered for the consideration of professional interests, and in no way claims to do anything more than suggest possibilities and raise questions.

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”.

 If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure rating of 14.7 PSI to our sea level, then the opposite reaction should demand that there be an upper/opposite 14.7 PSI limit that contains Pascal’s “closed vessel”, which we call our atmosphere, and yet, pressure diminishes as we rise in altitude. A “closed vessel” must be a complete and definitive container in which pressure is exerted globally and equally at right angles. The problem with declaring the atmosphere and the ocean as “closed vessels” and “equal pressures” is of course, that they are composed of stratifications of pressures, and are influenced by weather and other natural and unnatural means. This makes it necessary to construct a model that precludes all global interference.
======================================================================================================================

 Model  2 – The Planet Earth on a still day.

Purpose - To see the planet, skies, and landmasses as 3 empty, lifeless, weatherless units of consideration.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To look at the world’s “single ocean”, the entire atmosphere, and the total landmass as “closed vessels”, we must naturally view them all at rest, so we can make the relationship in that way.

The model demands that the sea is flat, so the currents and wave action is stopped, everywhere on the planet.

There are no winds or other movement in the atmosphere above the waters. This is necessary in the model, in order for us to be able to say that the stratification of both the waters and the gases are contained in “perfectly balanced” vessels.

Both the oceans and atmosphere are normally stratified by temperature, and by weights of content, but.....

The gaseous stratifications and the ocean’s reasons for stratification must now each be independently homogenized to create a “perfect model”. Nothing can be added, nor taken away.

Nothing is living or riding/flying through the homogenized sky, and nothing is living in the homogenized sea or on any landmass. All of the atmosphere and the ocean are independently and "evenly mixed".

The sky temperature is all at a single constant value, and the sea is at its own temperature.

There is no fluid or fractile motion going on anywhere, including within the landmass of the planet.

All is still and constant, in all of the Earth’s closed vessels that come into question here.

All natural environments (including landmasses) must be seen as empty of all living things, and of all unnatural content.

There is no breath, nor other form of wind, and there are no influential pressures at work on either the sea or the sky, from any direction.

All incoming rivers, springs, melts, and land-based watercourses are temporarily halted or do not exist.

All volcanoes, fires, quakes, and other sources of motion or emission are non-existent for the purposes of this model.

Nothing is bleeding off the atmosphere into space and nothing is moving or growing, anywhere on the planet, so the air, the water, and the land are “completely clean” and fixed in place. All is motionless.

What does still exist however, are the referenced 3rd Law of Newton and Pascal`s Pressure Law.

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


The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?

This homogenized model is the only way I know in which the study can be explained and understood.
=====================================================================================================================

Commentary:

If science has assigned a globally uniform surface pressure to the oceans, then they have declared it to be a "closed vessel".They have also then effectively  declared the atmosphere above the ocean to be a “closed vessel”. By extension, science has thus assigned the same characteristic to each and every nucleus that composes those oceans and atmosphere, and therefore by logical extension, to each and every atom in the universe. Ergo, the landmass is also a "closed vessel". Gravity is after all, a “constant”, according to science, so it must work the same everywhere in the universe.

If gravity is a “constant”, then it must be exactly that, if it does exist as a “materially influential force” in the universe. Being a “force”, gravity has a mandatory need under the very definitive rules of science, to be able to transfer that force by a known energy delivery system to perform work at another distant (“X”) location. One fully acknowledged and verified truth about every atom of every element is that its electrons travel freely as required, outside the internally-bound closed vessel that we call the “nucleus”. An electron is thus the only part of any atom that has “freedom” across the entire universe. All nucleii are bound within themselves and may combine with others only with the "permissions" allotted to each element by the known "rules" of covalence.

With the known “binding forces” contained within each single nucleus, every atom’s nucleus is a closed and positive pressure vessel, and with the recent discovery of Negative Pressure in November 2005, we might now suspect that every individual atom, including ions, is in a “balanced” and positive state of pressure. (Negative Pressure, by the way, is a confirmation of Einstein`s Cosmological Constant.) This would put gravity in a singular role as a benign facility that only gives scalability to mass, so gravity could not be an extendable force at all, unless a “graviton” was eventually proven to be a new and separate form of energy, as electricity is.

No graviton has been proven to be anything more than something that can only be sensibly defined as a supposition that arises from a scientific need for an explanation of how a “force” can do “work” at a distance, without having to employ a conveyor of some sort of energy. In light of this absence of transfer energy, absolutely nothing is left to explain the movement of the lead balls in Cavendish’s experiment, or in the like result of any of his “copiers”. This appears to be an undeniable fact that can only be refuted by a proven scientific explanation of, “What moved the lead balls in the Cavendish experiment?” I have no such answer, and a graviton may be inadequately equipped to be that answer. The following point might best explain my reason why:

If a graviton is found to be a genuine energy form, heretofore undiscovered, then it seems logical that it is subject to the verified laws of physics, and must also convey an equal and opposite reaction. This would seem to contest its theorized role as a (singly) attractive force.

Pertinent comments welcome.

Thanks

fleep


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2007 13:15:52
Does this "(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)" mean that you can't answer a simple question?

"What moved the balls?" is a real fundamental question for any plausible theory aboout gravity; it's not rhetorical.

Oh, btw we dismissed this idea "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”. " earlier because without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways.
Since I already pointed that out in an earlier post I wonder why you are rehashing it. Did you forget that it was rubish?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 02/12/2007 15:35:37
Hi BC;

I said "pertinent comments are welcome". You're blaming me for re-hashing, and you just keep on demanding an answer to a question for which even science has no non-hypothetical answer. Now that is illogical.

Sure. The question about the balls is a real fundamental question, but like I said before, nobody actually knows that answer, including you, and I will not even try to answer that one again, because the "transfer energy" that caused an apparent effect of "attraction", has simply never been identified, except by a hypothethetical means.

You say that;  "without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways."

Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down? That's all wet. All the atomic "weights" in any matter comprise the total "burden" of what it is. "Gravity", which is by every scientific admission, a very weak force, has nothing to do with the natural atmospheric behaviour of a falling burden.

Consider this: A falling object is extremely magnetic, but it gets torn away from a plane by the jet's velocity. It had been magnetically attached to another highly magnetic place on the plane. Now, if the Earth's weak force of gravity is allegedly concentrating such a weak force from 50,000 feet down, and the extremely magnetic and attractive spot on the plane does not override the weak force below, and make the falling magnet try to return to the plane, why do you insist that a weak force has any role in this at all? Stuff just falls downwards through the atmosphere, because that is just the nature of the atmosphere and falling objects. Nothing that has enough total "load of atoms" to overcome a cross-wind (or any other influence, like a lightning bolt, for example), has ever and will never, fall any way but straight down.
 
You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?

The combined atomic "burdens"; i.e. - all the atoms of the object are all that are falling, and the atmosphere does not "know" a plummeting magnet from a falling apple. The atmosphere didn't "know" anything in Newton's day, and it still does not, some 300 years later.

Now. How about the questions asked in my Model 2? They are these, (and please consider Model 2 again before you answer them.)

The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?


Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2007 18:10:34
Science has a perfectly good answer to the question. The answer is gravity.
If you wish to dispute the reallity of gravity you need to come up with an equally plausible explanation. It's perfectly logical for me to ask you what it is.

"Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down?"
Since you said
"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”. "
Otherwise how could it know which way to fall? Of course, universal gravitation answers this perfectly.
Pointing out this failure on your part to provide a reasonable alternative to the well established fact of gravity or pointing out that three's a problem with your idea about things naturally falling down without having something to define which way is "down" is perfectly pertinant to the matter in hand.



"You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?"
 Yes and no. I'm pointing out that, without gravity to tell them which way to fall things might fall sideways. This is absurd. It is also a drict consequence of the non existance of gravity that you are putting forward.
I'm glad that you recognise it is daft; why don't you recognise it as a feature of a universe without gravity?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 02/12/2007 21:37:47
Hi;

Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation", but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?
 
Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space. My model 1 (inside an atmosphere) explains how stuff falls to Earth from the Karman Line. Outside an atmosphere, the only stuff an object falling (in any direction) hits out in the vacuum is anything directly in its dierect path, and there isn't anything (except maybe antimatter,) attracting it to what it hits out in space, any more than there is inside an atmosphere. Falling in atmosphere = downward. Falling in the vacuum of space = any direction. "Gravitation" offers no behaviour of any kind that could be called a "constant".

Whatever do you mean about my "failure to provide a reasonable alternative"? It's electricity, of course. I have pointed out many times that we live in an electric universe, and about all the live currents in space, and the magnetospheres, and the Van Allen belts, and the neutrinos, and the plasmas, and the tightly-bound electrical properties of atomic nuclei, and the universal freedom of electrons, and the anomalies like Janus and Epimetheus that defy "gravitation", and on and on. The cosmos is filled with electrically generated signals and waves. Einstein even had to come up with "relativity" it to get around the "problems" that gravity left unexplained.

Somehow, you hold onto an old theory that can't even account for an energy transfer method of its own, which science says every "force" must have to deliver the "work" of that force to its work destination. (No energy delivered = no work performed.)

I haven't actually stipulated the falling of things (exclusively)as a feature of a "universe without gravity", because I clearly have separated the behavioural difference between things falling through the vacuum, and things falling through an atmosphere to define only those behaviours individually. When a logical approach is taken, then anyone can consider that there is a difference between those two behaviours, and therefore, gravitation can not be a universal "constant" at all. A "universe without gravity", as you call it, is suddenly a very clear picture.

As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?

Now. How about addressing the 3 questions I asked, based on my Model 2?

Again, these are:

(I said:) "The anticipated conclusions should answer these questions for the atmosphere, the ocean, and the land:"

1)   Are the atmosphere, the ocean, and all incidences of landmass each a “closed vessel”?
2)   Does Pascal’s Law then apply to all of the gas, fluid, and solid particles of the whole Earth?
3)   Is Newton’s 3rd Law thus satisfied in each and every case within all closed vessels on “Earth”?

Address those, and we can get down to work.


Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2007 20:55:45
"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation""

OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means- it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples.
Yes, gravity is a theory because it is all of those things.
As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.


"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"

That simply isn't true.
The only thing gravity requires matter to do is atract other matter; it does. The presence or absense of air makes no diference to that attraction.
The fact that, for example, a fallig feather is slowwed down by the air doesn't in any sense mean that the feather isn't atracted to the earth- it just means the air gets in the way. What else could it do?

"Come on now. I've told you many times that stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space."
Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.
It's also an observed fact that from any point of view, any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls- it follows exactly the path gravity predicts rather than your ammusing idea that it can go any way it likes. (The moon is a well documented example of such a body- it's path has been "documented" for about 4000 years)

Since these daft ideas have already been shown not to agree with reallity and, as I have said before, if your ideas don't tally with the facts then it isn't the facts that need changing, why are you repeating them?
Are you really just trying to waste time or are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?

BTW, "As for the hypothetical "graviton", I think it should be called something like, (let's see now), ummmm..... How about, "a lepricon"?"
Very funny but you missed the point; be it gravitons, lepricons or morons, something moves the balls.
You can call it what you like but, since the balls move, something must have moved them. Any theory that discounts that is at odds with the facts and, therefore, is wrong.


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/12/2007 17:22:18
Hi BC;

"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation".
 
OK so, once again you have forgotten what "theory" means - it means as good a model of reality as you ever get. Well established backed by lots of evidence, able to make predictions that can be and have been experimentally verified and with no known counter-examples. (The underlined is untrue, or we wouldn’t have Einstein’s theory of Relativity.)

No, it doesn’t actually mean any of what you said at all. Oxford Dictionary says –“Theory” (n) -a view held:  supposition explaining something ; the sphere of speculation as distinguished from that of practice."

“A model of reality” is only the preparation of a display that will possibly (and supposedly) better illustrate a hypothetical extension of a supposition.  My Model 2 (which you continue to dodge) is an example of such a thing.

As such it is the best that science ever hopes to offer for anything.

I don’t agree. The virtual environment of computers is exponentially advancing our knowledge in just about everything else, but I contend that as long as the efforts persevere in trying to prove a gravity-based something, those virtual models will be designed around and from the viewpoint of a mere assumption that a mere theoretical beginning point for the search is a valid course. Ergo – Gravity is assumed to be real, (and it might be, but is not adequately proven against electrical reasons); so the virtual models repeatedly get based on gravity, an unproven assumption. Where else could they arrive?

How about someone courageously making a virtual model (using space-based "electrics")that is purposefully designed to prove that gravity does not exist? Who wants to find that out? Apparently no one does, and that might only be on account of the fact that we are comfortable in our close-mindedness about the (illogical) possibility that any other possibility (but gravity) could be real.

"but gravitation cannot be a single "universal" because it's not a "constant". Matter acts differently in a vacuum than it does in an atmosphere. What can make two universally different behaviours into one "constant"?"

 That simply isn't true.

 Oh, but it is. I repeat:" stuff can only fall straight down inside an atmosphere, but it can fall in any direction in the vacuum of space."

Yes you have spouted that nonsense before and it was pointed out at the time that it's simply false. Things fall straight down in a vacuum tube too.

Of course they do. You conveniently ignored that I said in the same message that I was talking about the vacuum of space, and not just any vacuum, such as one that we create on Earth. It is known that stuff falls straight down anywhere on the Earth, or in any other genuine atmosphere. I can’t possibly ever know it, but if we had a vacuum tube that was sealed at ground level extending all the way up into the vacuum of space, perhaps the perfect vacuum would make a small magnetic  material object dropped in the center of the tube, move over and ride downwards against the wall of the tube.  I rather believe that it would be coerced to the wall by the magnetic pole’s attraction, as is a compass needle.  We would never see this if the test was done in a short vacuum column at ground level. Gravity does not move compass needles.

“ any object in a vacuum (and without some other force acting on it like a rocket) falls - it follows exactly the path gravity predicts ... The moon is a well documented example of such a body...”

Gravity does not predict anything. The old math was created for the purpose of trying to explain the natural event. Math is rather like law. Experts can write math equations that seem to be unexplainably true, but they have no practical use in most cases. Gravity equations were designed merely to answer a supposition that could not be contested against anything else back then, because the electrical facilities in space could not be examined way back then as other options. Build a case, fool a jury, and set a “precedent”.  It’s rather like our inability to quash foolishly high settlements in legal cases where someone has won millions because of an injustice blindly buried inside a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Things like that happen when some believe that “frenzy needs a quick and convenient answer”.

Does it not seem strange to you that some moons and planets follow elliptical orbits, even while some of them are maintaining a particularly “controlled “ axial method of making the seasons reoccur at the same times of their full cycle around their parent body? If gravitation was constant, could only some orbits be elliptical? Even in the unlikely possibility that they are caught in a “gravitational grip” that is allegedly “constant”, would all the magnetic poles and places like the moon’s magnetic “areas” not (possibly) throw the “constant grip” into a chaotic rotation? What would permit the ellipses to maintain their stability? What are Van Allen Belts, ring currents, magnetospheres and electromagnetism doing in all their many cases? Why are you ignoring this whole area of study?

are you really unable to remember that the ideas were already trashed?

(Was that ever done by a logical questioning of individual recognition that other possibilities can and might exist, or out of a national patriotism to the “British genius” of Newton?) We Canadians are part of the commonwealth too, but I wouldn’t care if Newton’s theory was written by my own father before he died. If I thought he was wrong, I would say so.  

Any theory that discounts that, is at odds with (either you, or) the facts and, therefore, is wrong.
 
That statement too, is your own theory, which puts it on a par with mine, which is basically a simple (but intensely questioned) suggestion that something else could be truer than the status quo.

Now. How about the questions posed by Model 2?

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 05/12/2007 10:54:25
The theory of universal gravitation has produced precise results on the motion of planetary bodies and is totally satisfactory for everyone in the universe except fleep.  I am not proposing to enter into fatuous arguments about this.

The only point that could be argued is the precise origin of this extremely accurate and consistent law.  Relativity explains it in terms of space curvature which looks very satisfactory. 

Numerous others have tried to produce some sort of residual electromagnetic effect like the Van Der walls forces that hold most atoms together but none have been successful.  Any such theory must include the same effects as relativity which has been adequately proved.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2007 11:05:03
As has been pointed out before, theory in a scientific sense does mean that.
From Wiki.
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

And once again you are granting magic powers to lumps of rock; how else can they tell if they are in a vacuum tube or in the vacuum of space?

The real problem here Fleep is that you don't seem to understand that it takes more than imagination to come up with a useful hypothesis in science.
Imagination alone can produce made up worlds with interesting properties. This isn't always a bad thing; Terry Pratchet has made a lot of money from it.
The problem is when you try to tell use we are living on the diskworld.
We can look at the world and see that your ideas simply don't work.
No ammount of rambling red text will make it right.

To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 09/12/2007 18:51:48
Hi;

Okay. I can't even sell ice cubes to those who are dying of the heat, but I can do the logic of why they should think about buying something from me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isotropy is the unchanging property of being independent of direction. Radiation, as used in physics, is energy in the form of waves or moving subatomic particles.

 E.g. - Isotropic radiation has the same unchanging intensity regardless of direction of measurement. An isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how a test particle is oriented.

“Isotropic” means a “constant” - (e.g. – such as a constant transfer of force, and thus is universal in its range).

A constant is something, generally a number, that does not change.

(Space is also isotropic, i.e.- (a universal constant).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gravity is said to be non-isotropic, (yet "constant") so it can change in form and intensity and/or vary in any direction.

Because gravity is also "constant in time", it is therefore also said to be universal.
 

So, radiation is a constant isotropic form of energy that never changes, anywhere in the universe.

Gravity, on the other hand, is a non-isotropic “force" , and it is always able to change, anywhere in the universe.

By definition – “Force is an influence” that is said to “cause mass to accelerate, such as gravity, friction, or a push.”

(But it is not the energy that performs the work, and so a force is a stationary influence.)

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

Despite gravity’s contradiction of what a “constant” means, and that a “force” is not and can never be “energy” itself, science insists that gravity is a “universal constant”.

Science is effectively telling us that gravity pulls our tides, even though it cannot, by science’s own definitive explanation of its terms for “force, isotropy, constant, energy, and universal”.

Radiation is energy that moves. Gravity is a "force" which cannot move, so is gravity isotropic or non-isotropic?

Is gravity universal or is it not? Is gravity a force, or is it energy? Is gravity a constant, or is it not? Is gravity anything at all, or is it not?

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

Now I must ask you:Exactly which definition of anything are we supposed to believe?


Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2007 20:39:36
The constant, comonly denoted by the letter G, is about 6 X 10^-11

That's a number (It has units too but I can't be bothered remembering them). It wil be the same number tomorrow and, by all apearances it's the same number everywhere in the universe.
Why do you not understand that it's a constant?

To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.
 
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 09/12/2007 22:09:53
Hi BC;

What did I say it was? I said it's "generally a number". That doesn't make science's defintions jive, and I still say that Coulomb's Law is what Newton gets credit for, and it matches Newton's 3rd Law. Electricity is an energy form, that I believe obviously runs the universe, unlike gravity which remains an inconsitent "force" theory.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's Law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

I'm all done here, I guess.

fleep



Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 10/12/2007 09:30:42
That last post about isotropy was total rubbish and shows clearly that you do not understand the meaning of the word Fleep 

A light source may emit radiation evenly in all directions ie isotropically ( but most dont)  but if you look away from the light source it is still dark and the radiation pressure still pushes you away from the source.

The only radiation that we see that appears to be almost (but not quite ) isotropic is the cosmic microwave background.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2007 17:47:55
You said it didn't exist, but it makes perfectly good sense if you understand the physics.
Coulomb obviously got credit for Coulomb's law; same with Newton.
Electricity can only run the local bit's of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.
Gravity follows an equation of the same form as electrostatic attraction.
None of this is new.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 11/12/2007 17:21:41
BC said: “Electricity can only run the local bits of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.”   (No. Electricity is an energy form, not a “force”.)

Now you’ve done it. A “short range force” is all wrong, and you know it, so I now am forced to present more from legitimate sites, only this time, you will have to find out where I got it by going searching.

You guys just keep making off-the-cuff remarks about my clearly researched references and call them “nonsense”, “rubbish” and trash”. You keep telling me that my hypothetical suppositions are “garbage”, yet never elaborately explain why my references from Wikipedia and other places are “garbage”, if built into a pointed thought that is presented merely for the possibility of stimulating the minds of those who actually believe in other reasonable possibilities.
 
I was going to let this rest, but since you keep hoping that your insults will convince any real thinkers out there that I’m mad, I’m going to persevere a bit. You “regular sceptics” can drop out if you like. So what If I get no other comments? I’m not getting any appreciation for my efforts now. What would be different?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In physics, a black body is an object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. No radiation passes through it and none is reflected. It is this lack of both transmission and reflection to which the name refers. These properties make black bodies ideal sources of thermal radiation. That is, the amount and spectrum of electromagnetic radiation they emit is directly related to their temperature. The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation. The "electromagnetic spectrum" of an object is the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation from that object.

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from just below the frequencies used for modern radio (at the long-wavelength end) to gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometres down to fractions of the size of an atom. In our universe the short wavelength limit is likely to be the Planck length, and the long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself (see physical cosmology), though in principle the spectrum is infinite.

Black bodies below around 700 K (430 °C/806 ⁰F) produce very little radiation at visible wavelengths and appear black. Black bodies above this temperature produce “black-body radiation at visible wavelengths starting at red, going through orange, yellow, and white before ending up at blue as the temperature increases.  (As the temperature decreases, the peak of the radiation curve moves to lower intensities and longer wavelengths. The light emitted by a black body is called “black-body radiation” and has a special place in the history of quantum mechanics.

Growth of the Earth’s inner core is thought to play an important role in the generation of Earth's magnetic field by dynamo action in the liquid outer core.

A thermodynamic system is said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal, mechanical, and chemical equilibrium, as determined by the values of its pressure, temperature, etc. Specifically, equilibrium here is characterized by the minimum of a thermodynamic potential, such as the Helmholtz free energy, i.e. systems at constant temperature and volume:  A = U – TS
Or as the Gibbs free energy, i.e. systems at constant pressure and temperature: G = H – TS

The process that leads to a thermodynamic equilibrium is called thermalization. An example of this is a system of interacting particles that is left undisturbed by outside influences. (e.g. – Our core and mantle, then waters and atmosphere). By interacting, they will share energy/momentum among themselves and reach a state where the global statistics are unchanging in time.

Thermal equilibrium is achieved when two systems in thermal contact with each other cease to exchange energy by heat.  (e.g. – at the surface of our atmosphere). If two systems are in thermal equilibrium their temperatures are the same. (e.g. – the Earth atmosphere surface temperature might be at the same (final) temperature that (actually) arrived there from the sun.)

Thermodynamics deals with equilibrium states. In an equilibrium state, there are no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces) with the system. A system that is in equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.

Sir William Gilbert was the first to define the North Magnetic Pole as the point where the Earth's magnetic field points vertically downwards. His is the definition used today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sun is a magnetically active star. It supports a strong, changing magnetic field that varies year-to-year. The Sun's magnetic field gives rise to many effects including variations in solar wind that carry material through the Solar System. Effects of solar activity on Earth include auroras at moderate to high latitudes, and the disruption of radio communications and electric power. It also changes the structure of Earth's outer atmosphere.

If we, (the web reference source’s assumption), assume the following, we can then derive a formulaic relationship between the surface temperature of the two bodies.

1)   The Sun and the Earth radiate as spherical black bodies in thermal equilibrium with themselves.

2)    The Earth absorbs all the solar energy that it intercepts from the Sun.

A point charge is an idealized model of a particle which has an electric charge at a mathematical point with no dimensions. (e.g. - the point charge location on or near the Earth, and the point charge location on or near the sun.)

The fundamental equation of electrostatics is Coulomb's law, which describes the electric force between two point charges. The electric field associated with a classical point charge increases to infinity as the distance from the point charge decreases towards zero making energy (thus mass) of point charge infinite. In quantum electrodynamics, the mathematical method of renormalization eliminates the infinite divergence of the point charge.

Anisotropy is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which means homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference in a physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for some material when measured along different axes. An example is the light coming through a polarising lens.

Polarization is a property of electromagnetic waves, such as light, (including the Aurora Borealis), that describes the direction of the electric field. More generally, the polarization of a transverse wave describes the direction of oscillation in the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel. The direction of the (electric field) oscillation in electromagnetic waves is not uniquely determined by the direction of propagation. The term polarization is used to distinguish between the different directions of oscillation of electromagnetic waves propagating in the same direction.

Although it was first mentioned by Ancient Greek Pytheas, Hiorter and Celsius first described in 1741 evidence for magnetic control, namely, large magnetic fluctuations occurred whenever the aurora was observed overhead. This indicates (and it was later realized) that large electric currents were associated with the aurora, flowing in the region where auroral light originated.

Kristian Birkeland deduced that the currents flowed in the east-west directions along the auroral arc, and such currents, flowing from the dayside towards (approximately) midnight were later named "auroral electrojets" (see also Birkeland currents).

Still more evidence for a magnetic connection are the statistics of auroral observations. Elias Loomis (1860) and later in more detail Hermann Fritz (1881)established that the aurora appeared mainly in the "auroral zone", a ring-shaped region with a radius of approximately 2500 km around the magnetic pole of the earth, not its geographic one. It was hardly ever seen near that pole itself. The instantaneous distribution of auroras ("auroral oval", Yasha [or Yakov] Felds[h]tein 1963) is slightly different, centered about 3-5 degrees nightward of the magnetic pole, so that auroral arcs reach furthest towards the equator around midnight. The aurora can be seen best at this time.

Auroras are produced by the collision of charged particles, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, from the magnetosphere, with atoms and molecules of the Earth's upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km). The particles have energies from 1 - 100 keV. Most originate from the sun and arrive at the vicinity of earth in the relatively low energy solar wind.

When the trapped magnetic field of the solar wind is favourably oriented (principally southwards) it reconnects with that of the earth and solar particles then enter the magnetosphere and are swept to the magnetotail. Further magnetic reconnection accelerates the particles towards earth.

The collisions in the atmosphere electronically excite atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere. The excitation energy can be lost by light emission or collisions. Most aurorae are green and red emission from atomic oxygen. Molecular nitrogen and nitrogen ions produce some low level red and very high blue/violet aurorae.

Each (aurora) curtain consists of many parallel rays, each lined up with the local direction of the magnetic field lines, suggesting that aurora is shaped by the earth's magnetic field. Indeed, satellites show electrons to be guided by magnetic field lines, spiraling around them while moving earthwards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

It would appear to be fairly obvious that if the magnetic influence of the sun reaches our planet from 93 million miles away, it is here to perform something more than a night time light show. It would also seem obvious that the existence and planet-surrounding shape of magnetospheres around some of the significant bodies (as in my message 139967) are doing something big, other than just creating entertainment. Maybe I’ve been trying to reason the moon’s effect into the tides like everybody else, while it’s all happening from the sun’s obviously serious levels of thermodynamic control.
 
We’re talking about something that keeps our whole galaxy alive here. The moon, and everything else in our galaxy might (or must) all be pawns of our sun, and I just can’t see anything making more sense than that.

Ya, ya, I know. All of this is garbage too, including my few little suppositions injected here and there, because I don’t have the actual answer, but neither does anybody else, because most seem happy with the placebo, instead of a genuine cure.

Thanks anyway, if you bothered to read this far.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2007 20:19:27
The references are not garbage as such; most of what wiki has to say is perfectly correct. It's just that they don't actually have any bearing on the matter. That one about the Northern lights is a case in point; I know what they are; I know they are real; I know people who have seen them. What could they possibly have to do with whether or not two lumps of stuff in a lab atract one-another?

"Now you’ve done it. A “short range force” is all wrong, and you know it, so I now am forced to present more from legitimate sites, only this time, you will have to find out where I got it by going searching."

Try searching this thread. I have explained at some length that electrostatic forces between uncharged objects fall as 1/R^6. Than makes them short range.
Because all magnets are dipoles the effects from them fall as 1/R^3 so they are also short range.
 End of story.
Since I'm not actually "all wrong" you don't need to bother posting any more about it.

Anyway, this "It would appear to be fairly obvious that if the magnetic influence of the sun reaches our planet from 93 million miles away, it is here to perform something more than a night time light show. " is wishfull thinking on your part; there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Sure, the magnetic field reaces us, so does the one from alpha centauri, so what?

"It would also seem obvious that the existence and planet-surrounding shape of magnetospheres around some of the significant bodies (as in my message 139967) are doing something big, other than just creating entertainment."
Same thing- just because you think they must have an effect isn't good enough- you need to demonstrate an effect before you will be taken seriously.

"Maybe I’ve been trying to reason the moon’s effect into the tides like everybody else, while it’s all happening from the sun’s obviously serious levels of thermodynamic control"
Last time I checked the tides were due to a combination of the moon's and sun's effect.
If it were just the sun then the phase of the moon wouldn't affect the tides. It does. Perhaps you should check up on things like that before you post.

"We’re talking about something that keeps our whole galaxy alive here. The moon, and everything else in our galaxy might (or must) all be pawns of our sun, and I just can’t see anything making more sense than that."

You are saying that the galaxy (which is huge and contains many stars, includin the sun) is being ruled by our sun (which isn't even a very big star)and then admiting that you can't see anything making MORE sense than that.
OK that puts things in perspective.

"Ya, ya, I know. All of this is garbage too, including my few little suppositions injected here and there, because I don’t have the actual answer, but neither does anybody else, because most seem happy with the placebo, instead of a genuine cure."

At the risk of re-opening a point you never really answered before, a "cure" for what?
There don't seem to be any major problems with the current model of the universe. Saying that it's all electricity is demonstrably false (not to mention mathemetically absurd).


To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2007 23:05:30
The fact that electromagnetic forces exist and have relatively small effects in the solar system and beyond is not in dispute.  You wish to suggest that these effects take the place of the normally accepted gravitational, linear and angular momentum based forces  that have been shown to accurately describe the operation of the universe for hundreds of years.  A few small and simple calculations will show that this is rediculous go away and do the calculations.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: socratus on 15/12/2007 14:09:57
Hi;

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡

Scientific advancement is fundamentally an effort to improve our understanding, and virtually every early discovery has been changed, corrected, or debunked over the ages. Our modern technology is well equipped to investigate other possibilities, and I seriously contend, that it is time we made the effort to prove that even genius can be wrong. Albert Einstein called his Cosmological Constant theory, “the greatest blunder of his life”, but with the discovery of Negative Pressure, he seems to have been proven to be correct.

Respectfully, I must say, that all humans each theorize based upon our observations, our understanding, and our always incomplete absolute knowledge. All of the above is only a theory, constructed from the components with which I have seemingly been cursed to dream.

fleep

===========================
My opinion about gravitation particles and star formation.
============.
We supposed that graviton particles:
a)
Theoretically predicted but never observed ( a hypothetical
particle ) with no electric charge and no mass is supposed
to be responsible for the gravitational interaction between
matter and energy.

A hypothetical elementary particle is responsible
for the effects of gravity (the quantum of gravitation ).
It means, that the initial gravitational mass of stars
and planets is created from gravitation particles .

Nobody knows :
“What geometrical and physical parameters
can gravitation particle have ?”
The Einstein’s GRT doesn’t explain
which particles create a gravitation field.
I will try to explain it.
======.
1.
Where has the first material gravitation particle appeared
from ?

Now it is considered, that reference frame which
is connected with relict isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K.

Therefore the gravitation particle can appears from
Nothing, from Vacuum, from Absolute Zero: T=0K?

Let us take some area of Vacuum (T=0K)
and mark it with letter R.
The number of particles in this area of Vacuum
we will mark with letter N.
Then every particle of this area has
gravity/ mass of rest: R/N= k.
2.
Can they have volume?"
No.
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
disappears. The physicists say, if the particle
has completely lost its volume
the physical parameters of particles become infinite.
But such statement contradicts the
"Law of conservation and transformation energy".
And then we must understand that the sense of the
"Law of conservation and transformation energy" is.
We should understand and accept that
when volume of the particles disappears
they become "indefinitely flat figures ".
What do "indefinitely flat figures " mean?
They mean, that we cannot reach Absolute Vacuum T=0K
and we also cannot reach density of the particle in the T=0K.
The “ Charles law” was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
These " flat figures " have the geometrical form
of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most
optimal form: C/D= pi = 3,14.

These R/N= k particles are initial gravitational particles.
============.

Which is common condition of gravitation?
1.
Let us suppose that in some local sphere of Vacuum
the quantity of the passive particles ( k) that is equal to
the number Avogadro N was found.
Then according to the principle of Boltzmann,
the gathering of the particles in some local sphere of Vacuum
has a probable basis: S= klnW.
It is common condition of gravitation.
================.

How did from these gravitation particles (k )
the first material particles appear ?

1.
The first material particles was called “helium”, because
helium exist very – very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Nobody knows what helium is.( !)
Why?
Because the behavior of helium is absolutely different
from all another elements of Nature. ( !)
!!!!
I will try to explain, how the helium
was created from R/N=k.
2.
The helium exist very near absolute zero: T=0K.
Therefore we must take in attention the processes
of superfluids and superconductors , which require extremely
low temperatures , approximately 0K.
3.
Then , the first particles which were created
from R/N =k could be helium II ( He II ),
which created temperature 2,7K.
4.
Then , the second particles which were created
from helium II ( He II ), could be helium I ( He I ),
which created temperature 4,2K.
/ Kapitza / Landau theory./
5.
And then all the system comes to rotary movement.
But helium rotates differently from all other liquids.
If one rotates helium very strongly, it starts to behave not
as liquid
but as elastic body
(experience of E.L. Àndronikashvili. /Georgia./ ).
Separate layers of helium become elastic ropes that change
the picture of quiet uniform rotation completely.
In such rotation sharp friction between different
layers of the liquid originates. From rotary elastic ropes
the slices of substance of various size come off.
Further they break to particles that received
the names of Helium-three 3He and Helium-four 4He.
The common thermal temperature in liquid increases .

Rotation and collision of the particles 3He and 4He at some
stage leads to their further crush to small particles, that
received
the name of the nucleus of hydrogen atom- proton (p).
Protons are initial, the smallest, material particles.

The most widespread elements in stars are helium and
hydrogen.
Our Sun consists of helium to 30% and of hydrogen to 69%.
Ii was found that in external layers of our Sun on 1kg of
hydrogen
it was necessary 270g of helium. In deeper layers on 1kg of
hydrogen
it is necessary 590g of helium.
Thus it is deeper into Sun it is more helium.
And in the central area of Sun helium-II, helium-I are found.
The reaction between (k ) , helium and
hydrogen go basically on the Sun.
All the elements of the material substance
are created from the initial particles (k) and helium.
==============.

How does all the system come to rotary movement ?

1.
If gravitation-particles fly to different sides,
they can not create the initial gravitational mass of
planets, stars.
It means, that any unknown power collects the gravitation
particles together and gives to them the movement in one
direction.
As a result of this common movement of all gravitation
particles (k ) in one direction the initial gravitational
mass
of planets and stars is created.
What power can gather all particles together?
2.
Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K the motion
of particles stops, and the energy of Vacuum is equal to
zero.
The quantum physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K there is
motion of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is not zero.
Therefore, let us take some energy area of Vacuum and
mark it with letter E.
The mass of this energy area of Vacuum we will
mark with letter M.
Then every particle of this area has energy/mass of rest:
E/M= c^2, ( E=Mc^2, M=Ec^2.)
3.
As this particle is in the state of rest condition
it impulse is equal to zero ( h=0).
4.
But this particle can change its state of rest condition.
If the particle has impulse of Goudsmit -Uhlenbeck h= h/2pi,
its energy will be: E=hw
The thermal balance of Vacuum will be disturbed.
The actively rotating particle with energy E=hw gibes the
movement of surrounding passive particles R/N=k and
a gravitational field begins to create.
And the source of a gravitational field is an active electron
E=hw.
The remaining particles R/N=k are passive participants
(victims) of the creating gravitation field.
============.
The stars are formed by the scheme:
e- --k --He II-- He I --rotating He--thermonuclear reaction –
р…
The Second law of thermodynamics doesn’t forbid this process.
======================.


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2007 18:40:31
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

No it won't, reaching absolute zero is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyway the origins of garvity must have happened long go when the temperature was much higher.

Classical physics says the temperature of a vacuum is undefined- how can you talk about the mean energy of the particles whaen there aren't any?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: socratus on 16/12/2007 07:35:51
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

No it won't, reaching absolute zero is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyway the origins of garvity must have happened long go when the temperature was much higher.

Classical physics says the temperature of a vacuum is undefined- how can you talk about the mean energy of the particles whaen there aren't any?
==============================================
Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.
Quamtun physics says that in a " Hawking space "
a " virtual" particles must exist.
Astronomers say about " dark particles " ......
it means that must be ......" quant of darkness ".
And there are cosmolodists that say that the observed
Universe could have evolved from nothing / A. Guth/.


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 16/12/2007 21:32:44
Hi folks;

While I am not averse to listening to criticisms of my hypotheses, gentlemen, might I politely ask that the theory of the “graviton” itself be conducted in a forum under only that subject title? As a specifically singular topic, I believe the moderators are generally inclined to move things to more appropriate forums than the ones we ourselves select, and this appears to be such a case. Apologies and thanks anyway for your consideration in participating within my efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent verification of some of the spatial happenings of electricity found in my hypotheses can be read at:  http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/lightning/
(Note that the source is from the U.K.)
===============================================================================================================
Now.  You guys keep trying to re-paint the room while the house is burning.

BC last said: “I have explained at some length that electrostatic forces between uncharged objects fall as 1/R^6. That makes them short range. Because all magnets are dipoles the effects from them fall as 1/R^3 so they are also short range. End of story.”

The Earth and the Sun are charged objects. They are not “uncharged” as you keep insisting. If all matter is positive, then everything made of it is positively charged in its natural form. If gravity is a “force” which is alleged to perform work at distant points, then it has to be a positive force. If matter was elementally negative, it could not attract or repel anything, because it could then not be a force at all. If matter is neutral, it would thus be amenable to sharing interchanges between itself and any known physical forms of energy. Why does this make sense, or does it not, and why not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onwards to Wiki -Being one of the four fundamental forces of nature, it is useful to compare the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field. The word 'force' is sometimes replaced by 'interaction'. (They use ‘interaction’ realizing that ‘force’ cannot go anywhere without energy, such as with a photon.)

 Electromagnetic and gravitational fields

The solar dynamo is the physical process that generates the Sun's magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field (and the surface magnetic field) is approximately a magnetic dipole, with one pole near the north pole (see Magnetic North Pole) and the other near the geographic south pole (see Magnetic South Pole).

Sources of electromagnetic fields consist of two types of charge - positive and negative. This contrasts with the sources of the gravitational field, which are masses. Masses are sometimes described as gravitational charges, the important feature of them being that there is only one type (no negative masses),  or, in more colloquial terms, 'gravity is always attractive'. (Or, ‘positive’, if speaking in electrical terms, since elemental matter in its normal state is positively charged at the nucleic scale, thus excluding the electrons, which are externally-based for purposes of covalence, etc.)

The relative strengths and ranges of the interactions and other information are tabulated below:

Theory                        Interaction       Mediator   Relative Magnitude    Behaviour   Range

Electrodynamics   -          Electromagnetic  - photon             10 36          1/r2        infinite
Geometrodynamics  -            Gravitation    - graviton           10 0           1/r2        infinite

Gravity has an order of magnitude that is many times less than electromagnetic “interaction”, and gravity has only a highly challenged hypothetical means of being able to do work over any distance at all. (Read the entire description of “graviton” in Wiki, including all the problems with the hypothesis).

The potential energy between charged objects is called ‘voltage’ and current is the movement of charge. The workings inside the Earth and the Sun are often comparatively called ‘dynamos’ in scientific texts. Both are “charged objects”, and the internal dynamos are the voltage sources that initiate the connection between them – (you know all this up to here), - through the spatial currents and the magnetosphere’s contribution as a “transformer”. The electromagnetic connection completes the circuit, and the pressure moves our tides. (But you won’t consider the possibilities beyond what you know, even though Wiki explains the logic of its possibility.)

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

174.0 PW  = the total power received by the Earth from the Sun. (10 15 watts X 174)

A positive pressure is required to push the energy in a conductor through the negative pressure of space; otherwise, nothing can be an energy form that will force the current to be conveyed to where the ‘work’ is to be done. If there was no pressure, (such as a potential difference or an electromotive force), there would be no current to move the electrons. The solar wind is a motivational pressure.  

The sun and the Earth allegedly contain massive (different) amounts of gravitational “force”, (a ‘potential’), that should be motivating a flow of ‘gravitons’ in both directions, (since gravity is alleged to be mutually attractive between masses), but a ‘force’ just goes nowhere by itself. The math for gravity simply had to be created to reach across all spatial “gaps”, or gravity itself would not meet Newton’s own 3rd Law.

Your repeated allegation that the elemental bodies involved (and everything on them) are “uncharged” is repeatedly untrue. The reason for magnetospheres is apparently to act as ‘connectors/switchboards’ for incoming solar electromagnetic energy. The connecting currents between the Earth and the Sun must be changing the polarity at our magnetosphere, thus creating an “attractive” effect between the two bodies. The tides are thus “pulled” along below the moon as it advances around the planet. Gravity cannot ‘pull’, because it has no proven energy connection.

The ‘magneto-tail’ curls back behind the Earth to ensure an identical 3rd Law performance of the tides on the opposite (night) side of the Earth.

Please look here, at the models (or print them to work on) of the Spring and Neap tides, but remove their arrows and try my version below to explain them, instead of just assuming that gravity has any role at all: (The sun is shining from the left in both models).

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/tides.html

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/

Spring Tides -When the moon is directly between the Earth and the sun, the high (Spring) tides rise behind the moon because the sun-Earth’s space-based ring current is blocked from reaching our magnetosphere, and glances off the moon in the direction of our poles. The result is that the magnetosphere expands outward towards the blocking moon, and the normally magnetosphere-induced pull on the ocean behind the moon is relieved, so the tide on the sun side of the earth follows the magnetosphere outwards, and the tide rises in the direction of the moon (and sun). The high tide also rises on the dark side behind the planet, directly opposite from the point at which the sun is blocked by the moon. The reason for this is that the magneto-tail curls back toward the Earth on the dark side, duplicating the frontal (magnetosphere-relieving) effect and fulfilling the 3rd Law. The magnetosphere is obviously involved in the tidal process, and the magneto-tail is obligated by the 3rd Law to perform the same effects at its opposite point(s).

Neap Tides -When the moon is not blocking the sun in any way, both the side directly facing the sun and the opposite side facing directly away from the sun, are exhibiting the low (Neap) tides. Since the magnetosphere is closer to Earth and not abnormally expanded outward towards a blocking moon, the oceans are not pulled out as far towards the sun. In all cases, dipole conversions, wherever they might occur in the electromagnetic link system between the sun and the earth, are handled by the magnetosphere. It is a ’switchboard’ that makes the sun’s electromagnetism arrive at our planet in the correct polar position to cause the attractive effect. Again, on the dark side, the magneto-tail is duplicating the direct sun’s “electrical sequence”, and curling the identically low pulling effect back onto the dark side of the planet.

In all cases, dipole magnets, wherever they might occur in the electromagnetic link system between the sun and the earth, are handled by the magnetosphere. It is a ’switchboard’ that makes the sun’s electromagnetism origin arrive at our ocean surfaces and pull the tides to the degree that we witness.

In electrostatics, the charges are stationary, whereas in magnetostatics, the currents are stationary. Magnetostatics is a good approximation even when the currents are not static as long as the currents do not alternate rapidly.

Lightning is an electrostatic discharge that could not travel through our atmosphere if our atmosphere was an electrostatic/stationary medium.  So, our atmosphere is host to the magnetostatic stationary currents that maintain contact with the magnetosphere along those stationary currents’ “lines.”

Earth’s non-stationary electromagnetic charge is constantly reaching out to the magnetosphere and connecting to a stationary magnetostatic ring current that extends all the way to the non-stationary electromagnetic point-charge at the sun’s end of the circuit.

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

And that is how I see the motion of the tides, and thus, very likely, an amazing host of other happenings out there, which are attributed to a “force” that has no legs, at all.

This might not be expertly explained, and there might be an error(s) in succession logic, but I can be sure that if anybody even tries to examine my hypothesis diligently, my mistake(s) will be pointed out to me.

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2007 22:26:24
"The Earth and the Sun are charged objects. They are not “uncharged” as you keep insisting"

Bollocks; they are connected together by the solar wind which is ionised enough to be a conductor.
I keep insisting on this because it's true. Do you not understand that idea?


"If all matter is positive, then everything made of it is positively charged in its natural form."
Half of it isn't positive, so it baances out for objects like the sun and earth.

"If gravity is a “force” which is alleged to perform work at distant points, then it has to be a positive force. "
Positive charge and positive forces have nothing to do with each other. This is just muddleed thinking. Please learn some physics.

"If matter was elementally negative, it could not attract or repel anything, because it could then not be a force at all."
Demonstrably false - look at a negatively charged electroscope sometime.

" If matter is neutral, it would thus be amenable to sharing interchanges between itself and any known physical forms of energy. Why does this make sense, or does it not, and why not?
"
Partly it doesn't make sense because it mixes up several differeent ideas but mainly it doesn't make sense because it ignores gravity. Accepting it as axiomatic would be begging the question. If you think it's true then prove it with some evidence rather than just boldly asserting it.

Learn some electrostatics. Positive charges repel positive charges and atract negative ones. Similarly negative charges atract positive ones and repel negative ones.
That makes statements like this "(Or, ‘positive’, if speaking in electrical terms, since elemental matter in its normal state is positively charged at the nucleic scale, thus excluding the electrons, which are externally-based for purposes of covalence, etc.)" complete nonsense.

The forces produced by ring currents and radiation pressure are small, far too small to explain the tides. They are also affected by the sunspots etc; the tides are not so they cannot cause the tides.

"This might not be expertly explained, and there might be an error(s) in succession logic, but I can be sure that if anybody even tries to examine my hypothesis diligently, my mistake(s) will be pointed out to me."
Your error is that you keep ignoring established facts like the short range of electrostatic forces between neutral objects and the fact that the sun and earth are such objects. You also cite the very evidence that shows you are wrong  yet claim that it supports your view.
The only reason Gravity can hold the earth in orbit is that , unlike the electrostatic effect, it doesn't get cancelled out by the equivalent of a negative charge (an object with negative mass. It's right there in the Wiki article. "Masses are sometimes described as gravitational charges, the important feature of them being that there is only one type (no negative masses), or, in more colloquial terms, 'gravity is always attractive'."
Then you throw in muddled ideas like the energy that reaches us from the sun; it gets here by electromagnetic radiation; nothing to do with gravity and it doesn't have any problem traveling through a vacuum (have a look at a light bulb sometime- a sodium lamp streetlight would be a particularly good example here). There's a tremendous amount of energy transfered but it has nothing to do with the question. If the sun went cold and dark we would still stay in orbit while we froze.
The other thing you seem to do a lot is bring in meaningless phrases like "electrostatic/stationary medium."
To make a Scientific hypothesis you need to connect it to the real world with observations. In failing to do this you are being unscientific and shouldn't be posting on this, or any other, scientific site.


And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: socratus on 18/12/2007 18:14:02

And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)
=========================
What geometrical and physical parameters can
 particles have in a " Hawking,s space "
 or in the space T=2,7K ?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2007 18:18:57
I can't find any meaningful description of what "Hawking's space" is. Did you make it up?
Anyway, this is still in the wrong thread.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 20/12/2007 18:17:52
Hi:

Back in my messg 146035, I said;

The potential energy between charged objects is called ‘voltage’ and current is the movement of charge. The workings inside the Earth and the Sun are often comparatively called ‘dynamos’ in scientific texts. Both are “charged objects”, and the internal dynamos are the voltage sources that initiate the connection between them – (you know all this up to here), - through the spatial currents and the magnetosphere’s contribution as a “transformer”. The electromagnetic connection completes the circuit, and the pressure moves our tides. (But you won’t consider the possibilities beyond what you know, even though Wiki explains the logic of its possibility.)

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

174.0 PW  = the total power received by the Earth from the Sun. (10 15 watts X 174)

A positive pressure is required to push the energy in a conductor through the negative pressure of space; otherwise, nothing can be an energy form that will force the current to be conveyed to where the ‘work’ is to be done. If there was no pressure, (such as a potential difference or an electromotive force), there would be no current to move the electrons. The solar wind is a motivational pressure.

BC said: "The forces produced by ring currents and radiation pressure are small, far too small to explain the tides."

I have a question for you. Please clearly explain to me how even a portion of the enormous  energy that is leaving the sun and  being conveyed to the Earth through the interstellar medium by the solar winds and/or the ring currents, accomplishes the fulfilment of Newton's 3rd Law, if the energy handed over to our own planet is not identical to the amount of energy that left the sun?

Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2007 17:21:41
That enormous amount of energy is indeed carried from the sun to the earth and I never said it wasn't.
Since it is carried as radiation rather than ring currents the force it carries is small. (and for the record, it pushes the earth away from the sun so it cannot possibly contribute to the force that holds the earth in orbit).
The forces due to ring currents are too small to explain the tides or the orbit of the earth.


As for "Both are “charged objects”" re the sun and earth.
No, they still aren't. Stop lying about it.

Since it is based on a false premise, there's no suprise that your conjecture that this charge (which doesn't exist) gives rise to the tides is also wrong.


Just for a change lets imagine what would have happened if a scientist had come up with the idea that the force that holds the earth in orbit round the sun was electrostatic.
He would have wanted to see if his idea was consistent with the known rules of physics.
Perhaps the first thing he would have to do would be to work out how big the force would need to be. That's straightforward mechanics- you can find the equation all over the place.
For a body moving in a circle the force required to stop it flying off in a line is

F = M ω2 r
Where M is the earths mass, ω is the angular frequency of the rotation and r is the radius of the circle.
This gives us a potential problem, how do we measure M?
Well most of the earth is covered by water and, since the water is floating we can say the earth must be denser than water. On the other hand we know that elements much denser than water like lead, gold and mercury are rare and even the densest materials are only about 20 times denser than water.
Thus we know the density of the earth is somewhere between 1 and 20 times denser than water, probably closer to 1 than 20 so I will chose 5 (pretty arbitrary but I'm not looking for the world's greatest accuracy).
We know how big the earth is so we can calculate the mass from the product of the density and the volume.
the volume is 4/3 pi r3
r is about 6.8E6 metres That makes the volume about
1.32 E 21 cubic metres and, with a density of 5000 Kg/m3 we can calculate a mass of 6.5E24 Kg

OK the other terms are relatively simple because we can just look them up.
ω is about 2E-7 radians per second
r is about 150E9 metres

So the force attracting the earth to the sun is about 3.5E22 Newtons (that's a lot of force)

If this force is electrostatic in nature it implies that there are charges on the sun and earth. It can't tell us which is positive or even how much of the overall charge is on each item. It can tell us what the product of the 2 charges would need to be in order to crate this big a force.
It's Coulomb's equation

f=1/4pi εo Q1 Q2 /R2 =3.5E22
We can solve that for the product of the 2 charges since we know the constant term there is 8.988E9 and get Q1Q2=9E30
Now it's difficult to say just how much of the charge is on the sun vs how much is on the earth but lets make the assumption that they are balanced overall and so the 2 charges are the same.
That means each body has a charge equal to the square root of the value calculated there.
The charge would need to be about 3E15 Coulombs.
OK is that plausible?
Well the more charge you put on a conductor the higher the potential gets.
PD=Q/C
We can calculate the capacitance of the earth as being an isolated conducting sphere. That's a pretty standard exercise and the result is 710E-6 F (from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance if anyone wants to check.

If you calculate the potential you get a value about  4E18 volts

That means that an electron from, for example, the sun would accelerate towards the earth and, on it's journey, it would pick up about 4E18 eV of energy. That's more than practically any of the cosmic rays hit us with. Also the available current would be huge because the Sun's not short of electrons. We would be pounded by a vast current of these ultra high energy particles until the charge was lost.

(If the earth were -ve charged we would get hit by high energy protons from the sun instead- the effect would be the same.)

Any competent scientist would now say that the hypothesis leads to a predicted outcome- (a huge pounding that would strip most of the atmosphere off and blast the earth's surface)- which simply isn't observed in reality. So any competent scientist would reject the postulate.
It remains to be seen if Fleep will stick to this plainly false idea

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 21/12/2007 19:00:24
Hi BC;

All right. I will accept that you are evading the primary question, but you did say this:

"That enormous amount of energy is indeed carried from the sun to the earth and I never siad it wasn't. Since it is carried as radiation rather than ring currents the force it carries is small. (and for the record, it pushes the earth away from the sun so it cannot possibly contribute to the force that holds the earth in orbit)".

Your concession that it "pushes the Earth away from the sun" was a surprise to me. Of course you realize that if the Earth is contained in the interstellar medium like everything else in our galaxy, it is thus surrounded (globally) by the 'pushing' (your word) pressures of its orbital retainment, as is every other orbiting/non-falling body in the galaxy. This declares that all contained bodies and atmospheres are globally contained, and thus, are 'closed vessels', so they are subject to Pascal's Law:

"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".

Whether you agree or not, this sustained global radiation pressure on each contained body is also a delivery of standing energy, with the work being performed upon those bodies. Because this is real work being done constantly, there is an automatic demand for an equal and opposite reaction, everywhere within the galaxy. All sustained global pressures are mandatorily fulfilling the 3rd Law by equally returning the parent force of the sun from every surface and being sutained as an opposite force in the sun's direction.

In case we have no further correspondence before Christmas...

I have no way of knowing the belief systems of all who contribute here, so I hope no one is offended if I extend our season's greetings in the traditional fashion of the way I was raised. May you all have a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

...and general greetings from Canada.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2007 20:05:57
I'm conceding a rather small point- the radiation pressure from the sun  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
exerts a force of about 30 E6 Newtons on the earth. The force requred to keep it in orbit is about 3.5E22 Newtons or about 1000000000000000 times bigger.
That's why I say that radiation pressure is too small to matter.
The effect of the solar wind is about 5000 times smaller still.
Why do you keep bringing up these tiny effects when what we are looking for is the 3.5E22 Newtons that keeps the planet in orbit?
And I'm not evading your question; it just doesn't make sense.
"Please clearly explain to me how even a portion of the enormous  energy that is leaving the sun and  being conveyed to the Earth through the interstellar medium by the solar winds and/or the ring currents, "....
Well, since the energy is no more carried by the ring currents than it is by horses and carts I can't see what answer I could give other than saying it's carried by radiation.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/01/2008 02:25:51
Happy New Year folks.

Let's try something different.

Science and Earth's Weather

(Regarding the modern practice of using “the theory of gravitation” as a “Standard”)

1) All weather events, like everything else in nature, are formed in the alleged presence of a theoretically-attractive force.

2) All weather events are formed beneath the atmospheric pressure that weighs vertically downward in any (model) column that one might wish to construct for virtual study.

3) In case an “attraction factor” somehow matters; concave fluid/gas surfaces show a meniscus, and convex fluid/gas surfaces show an “inverted meniscus”. These differences are theoretically attributed to “attraction” to their containers.

We know the following to be factual in the consideration of “constant atmospheric actions”:

1)   Any/all hot fluids rise to the top of cold fluids.
2)   Any/all hot gases rise to the top of cold gases.
3)   Such actions demand an equal and opposite reaction, as do all adjacent actions, in their turn.
4)   These variegated possibilities are constant under any temperature change or influence.
5)   All of these are related to functions of known forms of energy.

All we know, is that any vertically weight-controlled atmospheric pressure influence will-

1)   make any (heated) fluid /gas column rise to the top, above its vertically-relative cold proportion.
2)   become an influential cause of another adjacent action.

These points are relatively common knowledge, but are recorded here simply to bring them all together; possibly to view their relativities in a way that might be seldom considered.

(Off the cuff-) Hypothetically, the veracity of weather forecasting could, (and might already be being done), be improved by the ongoing projection of the 3rd Law, as continuously measured from the ever-changing center of an approaching system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main point of conclusion here is about “Global Warming”, which is entirely related to events whose results are displayed within the functions of the oceans and our atmosphere. None of the effects so far have been attributed to changes that might be taking place in the most “fundamental theory” that is held by science. Where does “gravitation” fit into all the energy-related things that are occurring in Global Warming? (‘Gravity’ does not even have a proven and recognized energy-transfer system that can be included in the explanation of weather-related events).

Some of us have heard of nothing new in the study of gravity, nor in its association with the events of Global Warming. Does that not seem odd to anyone? It would appear that the known, proven, familiar forms of energy are hard at work here, all by themselves. Where is gravity?

Thanks.

fleep


Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 04/01/2008 09:30:11
The gravity is the reason that hot air rises ie it is less dense than its surrounding cold air.  Without gravity this just would not happen and has been demonstrated using flames in orbiting spaceships or microgravity aircraft flights.  This is just as good an argument against your interminally presented rubbish about gravity being an electromagnetic process.


See below for a picture of a flame in zero gravity where hot air does not rise

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12may_1.htm
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2008 12:14:52
Once again I find myself wondering, how can you define "rise" (as in hot air rises) unless there's an "up" and a "down", and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different?

"Some of us have heard of nothing new in the study of gravity, nor in its association with the events of Global Warming. Does that not seem odd to anyone? "
No, it doesn't seem odd, I haven't heard anything new about gravity and current fashion in popular culture or the colour of cat's fur either. That's because they don't have anything to do with gravity.
Global warming is generally thought to be due to changes in how electromagnetic energy (IR radiation) is transferred through the atmosphere, in particular how adding something to the air that absorbs radiation will increase the nett heat transfered from the sun.
Gravity has nothing to do with it.
Weather is driven largely by convection currents and they rely on gravity. As soul surfer pointed out, the weather is evidence in favour of gravity in spite of your bizzare insistance that it doesn't exist.

BTW, since the maths shows it cannot possibly be any electromagnetic effect that keeps the earth in orbit round the sun and it clearly can't be any of the short range forces like the nuclear ones, perhaps you would like to say what holds the earth in orbit if you don't think it's gravity?

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/01/2008 12:38:16
Wow! Sometimes you old gravity diehards just run out of imagination. What's with showing me pictures of newly discovered ways of viewing flames in space and telling me it's about "gravity"? So what if that's how it was reported by an esteemed space agency that has not yet come to terms with how spatial events and effects might be better explained since Negative Pressure was discovered in 2005?

Negative Pressure is universal. Look at something from a different possibility for a change.

Could it possibly be, in the "space flame" example, that if flames burn both on Earth and in space, the common enabler would be a universal backdrop? Gravity isn't a "backdrop" that explains what's happening. It's an "attractive force", according to Newton and his sheep. In what possible way can anyone ever explain that "attraction" is a reason why flames look different in two different places? That isn't even logical!

I put more faith in the Genius of Einstein (and his Cosmological CONSTANTthan I do in all the stagnant technology in the world. I realize that Science has to maintain a public front as it delves quietly behind the scenes of conventional belief. They are working at it.  But, if gravity diehards don't start examining things from greater perspectives and new possibilities, you might all wake up one morning in the not-too-distant future, (I expect), and spew your coffee on the headlines of your morning paper, which has suddenly pulled down the trousers of the ancients.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2008 16:16:30
Fleep, you seem to have missed the problem with defining "up and "down" without gravity and also this bit "BTW, since the maths shows it cannot possibly be any electromagnetic effect that keeps the earth in orbit round the sun and it clearly can't be any of the short range forces like the nuclear ones, perhaps you would like to say what holds the earth in orbit if you don't think it's gravity?"
Could you provide us with an answer rather than a rant please?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/01/2008 21:01:12
Hi again;

BC said: “Once again I find myself wondering, how can you define "rise" (as in hot air rises) unless there's an "up" and a "down", and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different? “

Why do I have to be the one to explain that “up” or “down” need no explaining, particularly in the context of trying to defend a (gravity) theory that I think might be wrong?

Up is a direction, and down is a direction. They constitute a (parallax) way of viewing a vertical “plane”. A plane (by definition) is supposed to be level, but what is level if you are lying on your back and looking at the sky as if you were standing?
 
The “viewpoint of the observer” is not my creation, but it makes all the sense in the world.

Here’s the thing: ‘Up’ and ‘down’ are commonly necessary specific terms of convenience, simply for the function of supporting a relevant mutual interpretation. They differ in grammatical context from ‘back and forth’, which are generalities, but neither would matter in space, but on Earth; “ah; there’s the rub.” We all are looking at up and down as if we are all in a standing position at all times and locations on the planet. We cannot “stand” in space.

So to answer the first question, the answer is obvious. We need words to express our common view of vertical directions. The word “rise” is required to identify which vertical direction we are referring to, on the vertical (up/down) plane. The other word could be “fall”.

So.  If directions are simply terms of facilitating a common human understanding, then “up” and “down” are not any different on Earth than they are in space, but we are practical people, and that recognition would be unworkable.

Now – to the “meat” part of your question:

“...and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different?”

OK. You are Newton. It is the early 1680’s. You want the word “down” to have a significant meaning on the Earth, because a reverence has been attached to it by your theoretical gravity observation. You are primitively aware, (even though your understanding and assumptions are quite significant and reasonable for their time, ) that things act differently when they fall to the earth from inside our atmosphere, than when they fall through space, We have since learned much about what “falling” means, whether through an atmosphere, or through a vacuum, and that they both fall in a single direction, unless they are influenced in one of the ways described by Newton’s Laws of Motion.

The differences in the falling behaviour of objects that fall from inside Earth’s atmosphere and what occurs when objects fall through space are obviously completely relative to nothing but the presence (and nature) of “impediments” in the (any-directional) plane of the object. The “impediments” can be widely different in quantity, mass, density, (and in the case of energy forms), strength and velocity, etc., etc., but, we have constructed this satisfactory math to match theoretical assumptions, so now we are complacent, because it serves our purposes, in a mechanical sort of way.

Our (apparent) complacency has squelched the active encouragement of the student imagination to look for known/proven energy possibilities that produce the same answers that our successfully tailor-made math equations have done for us.

Why is this even important? We know how to plot and accomplish space missions. Everything seems to be working pretty well. Why try to fix it?

It’s now pretty late in the survival game to go rushing for new answers for what already works, but what if we found that much of what we have been attributing to ‘gravity’ is really occurring through the auspices of spatial electricity, and/or some other combination of weakly studied subject matters out there? We already know how to do all of the math related to electricity, and we know that it has become extremely refined; not as a theory, but as a reliable set of tools that are “energy-based”, unlike gravity, which has no energy attached to it. Coulomb and Tesla should have you wondering.

What if we did find something significant? Keep calling it “gravity” if you like, but for the sake of human survival, we should not ever become entrenched in the habitual. The high stakes are in the process of breaking all the banks, possible in less than twenty years, by some estimates.

Maybe the electrical switchboards and the grid have not yet been nailed down, but new discoveries are happening at a rapid pace these days, in case you haven’t been watching magazines like Nature, and Astronomy.
 
As for your last question; don’t look to me to tell you what keeps the Earth in orbit when science itself is not sure enough of its own library of studies of gravity to declare it no longer a theory.

Thanks
fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 05/01/2008 00:16:16
You are "Barking mad" fleep.  If you fly an aircraft from a high gravity turn to a zero gravity parabola you can easily film a flame changing from normal to zero g. your physics is completely wrong and I fail to see why you persist with such a stupid idea.  The only reason that I can think is that you enjoy looking a fool and getting angry responses like this!
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 05/01/2008 01:32:16
Well SS,

at the risk of allowing myself to deteriorate into an unfriendly insult contest, might I point out that you have taken the liberty to transform the relevance of my comments regarding a flame in open space versus one in Earth's atmosphere, into a flame transformation that takes place entirely within the earth's atmosphere, and thus is a non-comparator. Your case most likely should be attributed to the changes occurring under a situation where altitude and pressure changes are most certainly responsible for the departure from the normality of a pressure-sensitive activity (like the shape of a flame). You cannot fool atmospheric pressure, and your flame proves it.

The (appropriately-named) "Zero Gravity parabola" is an engineered trick that alters not only the physical dynamics expected of a constant flight performance, and also the senses, but obviously the "common senses", of which we all occassionaly appear to have few.

Thanks anyway.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2008 13:45:25
Fleep, did you think about this at all when you wrote it? "Why do I have to be the one to explain that “up” or “down” need no explaining, particularly in the context of trying to defend a (gravity) theory that I think might be wrong?

Up is a direction, and down is a direction. They constitute a (parallax) way of viewing a vertical “plane”. A plane (by definition) is supposed to be level, but what is level if you are lying on your back and looking at the sky as if you were standing?

Did you not think that "up" from my point of view is at roughly 180 degrees to "up" from the point of view of someone in Australia.

Since "Up" and "Down" are not fixed directions you need something to say which way is up.
That something is gravity.
Please try to think about what you post from a few other people's point of view. It will stop you making silly errors like that.

As for "OK. You are Newton. It is the early 1680’s. You want the word “down” to have a significant meaning on the Earth, because a reverence has been attached to it by your theoretical gravity observation. You are primitively aware, (even though your understanding and assumptions are quite significant and reasonable for their time, ) that things act differently when they fall to the earth from inside our atmosphere, than when they fall through space, We have since learned much about what “falling” means, whether through an atmosphere, or through a vacuum, and that they both fall in a single direction, unless they are influenced in one of the ways described by Newton’s Laws of Motion."
 Well, lets have a good look at that.

"OK. You are Newton. It is the early 1680’s. You want the word “down” to have a significant meaning on the Earth, because a reverence has been attached to it by your theoretical gravity observation."
Clearly Bollocks. The word had a perfectly well defined meaning before Newton looked at the issue; it meant towards the ground.

Newton's beliefs were quite complex but there's no doubt he had a reverance for God rather than his own opinion.

The phrase "theoretical gravity observation" Is a contradiction in terms It's theory or an observation; not both.

In Newton's day the notion of a vacuum was still a bit iffy.Torricelli's work was still quite new. So to say
"You are primitively aware, (even though your understanding and assumptions are quite significant and reasonable for their time, ) that things act differently when they fall to the earth from inside our atmosphere, than when they fall through space,"
Is rather suspect, however what Newton did was assume that the laws of nature were the same in the sky as they were here on earth and work out what orbits the plannets would follow.
The predicted paths proved to be (almost) exactly the same as the observed ones.
In short, He knew that objects falling in space followed the same rules as objects here on earth.
That's exactly why he proposed that the law was universal, and it's the opposite of what you keep saying.

Flames have been studied at various pressures; they only behave like the one shown if they are in zero gravity.
Also, since this "As for your last question; don’t look to me to tell you what keeps the Earth in orbit when science itself is not sure enough of its own library of studies of gravity to declare it no longer a theory." doesn't make sense, it doesn't answer the question.
(science is perfectly clear on the matter- gravity exists and does things like drive the tides and keeps the earth in orbit there are, or may be, other effects like dark matter but the effects are tiny. Dark matter is only affected by gravity so I'm suprised that someone who doesn't believe in it keeps talking about it)
Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 16/02/2008 02:33:10
Hi;

I had to take some time off to re-assess all the damage that some "contributors'" impossible harassment does to my thinking process. Purposeful distraction is more offensive than it is useful. I came to this forum seeking positive discussion with thinking individuals. Sometimes, I run face-first into unproductive denials that there can sometimes be some genuinely meaningful questions in other people's minds, and as much as I like to think that I'm opening new doors to logical discussion, I sometimes find that what is behind those doors is what should never be allowed outside.

Sure. Sometimes I pose questions to which others know the answer, and I do not. I have occassionaly stuck my neck out to forcefully extract a genuine explanation of why I was wrong about something. I don't need insults and lack of human assistance to make this forum go somewhere. I'm trying to participate in a gentlemanly fashion. Gimme a break sometimes. Make sure you understand what sometimes complicated viewpoints are saying, or sometimes simply implying, before you apply labels to the opposition. If I said them poorly, ask me if I meant it the way you read it. Courteous debate also should include consideration for the possibility that humans are not perfect in any way.

If anybody wants to get back to the basic theme of this theory, I'm trying again to remind you that where I'm heading is an effort to prove that there is another influential road to explain many of the things that "gravitation" does not.

Are you ready to discuss things intelligently, or do you just want to fire off shots of ignorance from the hip?
=================================================================================================================

Newton’s 3rd Law Ends at the Wall

Ever since Negative Pressure was confirmed as a discovery in 2005, we all appear to have forgotten the fact that it has always been out there. Dark Energy was there when Newton wrote his 3 laws of Motion, over 300 years ago, and curiously, we still have never chased off into the unknown to find out what happened in the cases of some of the largest physical reactions in history.
 
For example:

What happened to the "equal and opposite reaction" when Krakatau and all the other great volcanoes of history erupted? Where did Newton’s 3rd Law manifest the excesses of the instant firestorm when Hiroshima was decimated?

The fact is, that the 3 laws of Motion were written in a “global realm” that had no understanding of the possibility that a thing such as “Negative Pressure” could ever exist. There was no reason to contemplate such a thing, so nobody thought about it, but from the new scientific explanations and definitions of Dark Energy and Negative Pressure that are appearing “on line”, it seems like we might still be missing the boat. The “realm of negativity” is not just a global feature of our planet. It is a universal “constant”, and Einstein gave it to us almost a hundred years ago. He called it, “The Cosmological Constant”.

 We now have to figure out how to unite this negativity with the laws and terms of positivity.

Once, we only had to worry about defining the tools and properties of positivity, but now that we know that Dark Energy, (which is Negative Pressure), really does exist across the universe, we really should be checking the library, to see which parts of, and how many beautiful old leather bound volumes have now officially become antiques.

If the mandatory transfer of positive energy (under the 3rd Law) is now known to cross over into the realm of an energy system that “handles” the reaction in a negative fashion, then we ought to be rethinking a few things. The following is authoritative source information from the internet. (The comments in parentheses are mine.)

“The transfer of energy between the "system" and adjacent regions is “work”. (This statement speaks of “positivity”).

“Dark Energy is universal, making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills all otherwise empty space in the universe.” (So, 70% of all universal energy is available negative energy, everywhere.)

“That is, any volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy.” (This speaks of negative energy.)

“Strangely, dark energy causes (universal) expansion because it has strong negative pressure.” (A “cause” means that “work” is being done by negative pressure).

What all of this appears to mean, is that the universe is expanding, but since dark energy is only a “space” that is uniformly filled with a constantly-standing negative pressure”, then negativity cannot be a scalar (physical quantity); although positive physical energy is a scalar (physical quantity).
=================================================================================================================


So here are my questions, (which are basically one question):

1)   The equal and opposite reaction that is mandatory under the 3rd Law appears to need an “area of displacement” where any excess “work” can dissipate, as may be required in some circumstances. But, how can any huge positive action fulfill the 3rd Law, if positive action is a scalar occurrence, that rushes into (non-scalar) dark energy “spaces”?

Is it possible that if the action is so big that it cannot be equal, maybe it could at least be opposite, and being in negativity, any “balance” of a 3rd Law reaction could dissipate, or, maybe even become unnecessary?  Does that not seem plausible?

2)   If dark energy is just sitting there, everywhere around the universe, is it, (being negative pressure), then most likely available to all cosmological functions only for the purpose of being able to permit any and all physical reactions to be “absorbed” when they occur, even if they are too big or too fast to “finish”?

To clarify the question, with an analogy; If you are squeezing a sponge in your fist, while holding your hand under the water, and you immediately release your tight grip and then pull the sponge out into the air, did you notice that the sponge once again has plenty of water inside it? That water rushed into the empty (negative) “spaces” when you let the positive pressure off under the water, of course. (Do you see the analogy?)

Might I respectfully ask for a serious consideration of these questions please? (I will then take it further from there.)

Thank you.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 17/02/2008 11:30:41
I see no problems with Newton's third law in the examples you have noted.

It is interesting to note that in certain specific types of supernova explosions the explosion is asymmetrical and the residual compact object is ejected from the area of the explosion at high speed an example of the third law operating in very extreme conditions

Your questions are still not clearly enough defined to give an answer and I do not understand your sponge analogy.

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 17/02/2008 23:04:08
Hi SS;

Thanks for your comments.

I see no problems with Newton's third law in the examples you have noted.

It is interesting to note that in certain specific types of supernova explosions the explosion is asymmetrical and the residual compact object is ejected from the area of the explosion at high speed an example of the third law operating in very extreme conditions

Your questions are still not clearly enough defined to give an answer.

Good. Thank you. Forget the analogy.

As I see this, an orbiting body works like an object floating smoothly and evenly down a circular (or oval) river, and most orbits never change, because; “An object in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by a net force”. (Janus and Epimetheus, two outer moons of Saturn, are a good example of two orbits that do change, every time they encounter each other. Wiki says that they are the only known incidence of this orbit-switching behaviour.) The relevance follows.

If we take a hard look at something local, we have our lunar tides to consider. (We are seeking to identify the 3rd Law balancing of two types of pressures here: Positive and Negative.) The pressures either must balance, or else a portion of one pressure or the other must be “forgiven” its mandatory requirement to match the other, as required by the 3rd Law, but, only Positivity is “unforgivable”. “Negativity” is a universal Constant, so it cannot be anything but what it is, and must always remain.It cannot be the pressure that needs "forgiving".

The Earth, in comparison to the moon, has a positivity value of “6”, and the moon has a positivity value of “1”. In a continuous 3rd Law “action”, the Earth’s positive pressure reaches six sevenths of the way to the moon, and the moon’s positive pressure reaches out the other one seventh of the total distance back towards the Earth. At this point in space, the pressures meet, and the opposite reaction becomes mandatory.

Because the Earth is a much larger mass, and the moon has no atmosphere for the Earth's pressure to depress, the moon’s pressure cannot push the Earth itself, so it depresses our atmosphere by 16%, which pushes down the ocean surface by that amount. (The moon is a direct hard-pusher, since its surface itself, (without an atmosphere), is doing the pushing, and the Earth is a soft-pusher, because its soft atmosphere is receiving the moon's hard push.)

Orbits are stable and inflexible, but atmospheres and Negative Pressure are not.
 
So, the Earth’s atmosphere must “bend” below the passing moon’s proportionally “equal” and opposite force. This is to say that the pressure “reach” of the Earth’s mass into space exceeds the moon’s ability to match our pressure on a 1 to 1 basis. Something has to give.

The moon, also being in a “rigid” orbit, wins the pressure-fight, and Negative Pressure/ Dark Energy, has to make the concession, and take over the excess “work”. It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead. The moon does not “pull” the tides. The atmospheric depression caused by the moon’s proportionally greater positive pressure, (and the universally huge supply of negative pressure), actually pushes our tides as the moon progresses.

Newton’s 3rd law was right, but he obviously could not see the paradox that it created for his “gravitation theory”. The Inverse Square Law and the principle of its primary equation still both work, when looking at it this way.

The way I see it, a "harder pressure surface", (i.e. -a surface with the least amount of atmospheric "cushion" to absorb an opposing harder pressure), will always be the "winner" in a pressure "contest". The 3rd Law will be exhausted at the "losing end" of the reaction. If any pressure "overflow" remains unsatisfied by the needs of the 3rd Law, the negative pressure will "absorb it'.

What do you think?

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 18/02/2008 08:38:14
The idea is completely bonkers.

Firstly.  Objects do NOT go in a circular path unless they are acted on by a contiuous force  they only go in straight lines.

The rest of the stuff is just gibberish

In an orbit the attractive force of gravitation is balanced by force that is needed to make the object follow the elliptical orbital path.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2008 20:31:21
Fleep,
Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool.

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 19/02/2008 15:35:10
Replying to last 2 messgs - from BC & SS

It never ceases to amaze me that you two 320 year old guys just fail to be able to understand, that when you keep trying to "correct" me when my theories bypass or even defy Newton, it is about stuff that I do understand as well as I must, and have considered in the preparation of my messgs.

If I suggest something that defies Newton in any way, as a possibility, or as a condition that would apply if my theory is even "close" to being right, you declare me a fool, or "barking mad", or some other complimentary thing.

These accusations usually do not come, after your specific reason(s) why my thinking, within my theory,, (i.e. - outside the "box" of convention), is not possible. You often just hang me, without providing your own logical view as evidence that what my evidence said, was wrong. If this happened in court, your evidence from the unproven portions of Newton's writings would likely be declared "hearsay", because it too is still a THEORY. (e.g. - "hearsay", as in theoretical particle, "graviton").

If Newton was in the court, you can be sure that he would be on top of the latest discovery news, and he'd do a better job of getting modern technology updated, (if it should be), than trying to defend his own old theories. You guys do Newton an injustice.

There will be a surprise coming down the pike very soon. Go to
 http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6563

Read the whole thing. Then read up on anything else about dark energy and negative pressure that you can find. Gravity is about to get some changes made that arise out of modern technological exploration, which does not sit around with technologically old farts that seem to be trying to beat the rest of us in the race towards senility.

If you don't want to play new games, I would gladly let you two out, and get back to start dealing with people that are hip to Newton's modified 1st law of Motion - i.e.-

"A technology in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by a "net" force." (Bring it on!)

Hopefully, you two have a small appreciation for a humorous view of what's been going back and forth between us in the past. I'm not trying to insult anybody. I just would like to see if I can draw you (or anyone) into a place where people who know enough about Negative pressure and its promises of change, can have their foresight rekindled.

Without malice....

fleep



Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 19/02/2008 18:09:39
Fleep it is not for us to prove our case it is for you to prove yours and you have totally failed to do that so far.  In fact it's worse than that you have not even stated clearly exactly what your case is. Newtonian gravitation as corrected by relativity for high velocities works both for understanding the astronomical world, operating spacecraft and direct experiments using materials in the laboratory your alternative theory must first produce results identical to this (which it does not) and then add something to it that can be tested.

Our attempts to convince you of the errors in your thinking are clearly pointless.  I welcome innovative scientific thinking but what you have presented so far is not that.

Reading through the article you mention and agree that the evidence in favour of dark energy is mounting but this does not have any significant effect on any time or distance scale that is ever likely to involve mankind.  The basic expansion of the universe only becomes significant over distances of tens of millions of light years and dark energy at distances many times greater than this.

If you are referring to the article on "ultralight" energy.  this is a concept that only applies at the time of the initial inflation proposed way back before the first picosecond of the big bang and has absolutely no relevance to the behaviour of the universe today as the article makes quite clear.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2008 19:28:38
Fleep,
Read the title of the thread.
If you don't accept that the answer, by common consent is "yes, of course gravity exists" then, as I said before.
"Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool."
Otherwise this is just a waste of bandwidth.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 21/02/2008 06:30:44
I can scarcely believe that this thread is still going on.
fleep, when you post ill conceived, unsubstantiated, whimsical speculation, accompanied by a seemingly self-destructive desire to conceive explanations that are pure fantasy, you must expect some small measure of criticism.
Case in point:
If we take a hard look at something local, we have our lunar tides to consider.....It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead. The moon does not “pull” the tides. The atmospheric depression caused by the moon’s proportionally greater positive pressure, (and the universally huge supply of negative pressure), actually pushes our tides as the moon progresses.
Therefore why is the tidal bulge - high tide - beneath the moon, not 90 degrees around the Earth from the sublunar point? If your explanation were correct low tide should be beneath the moon.
You have offered a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore it is scientific. You have made a prediction based upon that hypothesis. The prediction does not match observation. Thereofore your hypothesis is false.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: ask on 23/02/2008 02:51:05
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=13122.0

I have a hypothesis about gravity, please take a look, thanks.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 28/02/2008 17:43:31
Therefore why is the tidal bulge - high tide - beneath the moon, not 90 degrees around the Earth from the sublunar point? If your explanation were correct low tide should be beneath the moon.
You have offered a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore it is scientific. You have made a prediction based upon that hypothesis. The prediction does not match observation. Thereofore your hypothesis is false.
[/quote]

Well, before I help do your homework for you, I should thank you for the usual compliments.

Now. Do you know what a "Barycentre" is? Look it up, and explain to yourself how an inward global pressure would affect the tides. (Don't be fooled by the ellipse.)

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: angst on 28/02/2008 18:36:56
Sorry fleep, but this is what you said;

The moon, also being in a “rigid” orbit, wins the pressure-fight, and Negative Pressure/ Dark Energy, has to make the concession, and take over the excess “work”. It is the appropriate amount of abundant Negative Pressure within our own Positive Pressure atmosphere that “commands” our atmosphere to surrender and become locally “depressed” by 16 percent, as the moon approaches and passes overhead.

(My italics).

At least run a consistent argument. What you are proposing makes no sense, and just changing the format of the argument each time somebody notices a flaw is no way to convince that you are 'onto' something.

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2008 19:20:02
Fleep,
Read the title of the thread.
If you don't accept that the answer, by common consent is "yes, of course gravity exists" then, as I said before.
"Perhaps you would like to oblige us all by telling us
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT.
Because, frankly, if you can't do that then you do look like you are barking mad, in particular you look like someone who gets a kick out of pointless arguments or looking a fool."
Otherwise this is just a waste of bandwidth.

Making up stuff pretending that tiny effects like dark energy have anything to do with it doesn't help.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 02/03/2008 20:22:54
This is a general reply, since nobody seems to be on track to resolving something.


I can’t figure out why nobody has understood the logic of how negative pressure is supposed to be working. If one follows the logical sequence of definitions, it should be observable.

Let’s try the check list method. If you don’t agree with a statement, separate it and explain why.

First, the known facts from Wiki, by general analogy, and from successive logic:

Einstein theorized the Cosmological Constant as a negative pressure in 1922. “This energy” he said, “would be needed to keep the cosmos balanced in a static state; a sort of freeze-frame existence where planets might move, but the universe itself remained relatively fixed.” Ergo, NP must be there to keep the cosmos in static balance.

1)   Negative pressure (NP) is now a confirmed discovery, announced in November 2005.
2)   “Pressure” by definition, is a force,and is not “energy”, so what was called NP is a Negative Force.

3)   “Force” is what causes a mass to accelerate. (It is NOT the experience itself, but its cause.)
4)   “Force” is the bully.
5)   “Force” may cause e.g - a twist, a push, a pull, or a punch. Energy is a fist in action.
6)   So -"Force” causes a “fight”. Energy throws a fist. A landed punch is the “Work” being done.
7)   “Force” (as a logic sequence) equates to POSITIVE FORCE and the consequences.
8)   “Negative Force”, (as in 2), is then, the opposite of an energetic incident, causing “work” to be absorbed, or cancelled, (such as the nullification of the need to complete what is normally a compulsory 3rd law reaction, such as in a case where the action itself has occurred on a scale/magnitude (of area/perimeter/distance/ volume), too large to be fulfilled, without disrupting the “regular business” of the cosmos). This interpretation is "in line" with the understanding that Einstein attached to his theoretical Cosmological Constant.


A)   So, we know a Positive FORCE (PF) really exists, and Energy (E) does Work (W) :  PF x E = W
B)   And we know a Negative Force (NF)  also exists,  causing this:                   PF x E = (W/NF)= 0

“A” demands a 3rd law reaction.

“B” “forgives” the need to fulfill a 3rd law reaction. (See 8) above.


Sorry, but this is hard to explain. That’s the best I can do so far. When I get some agreement or even logical reasons to examine another direction, I’ll be happy to proceed further with those who are willing.
====================================================================================================

This is a very simple exercise. Let’s see some true colours.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 03/03/2008 11:25:22
Now. Do you know what a "Barycentre" is? Look it up, and explain to yourself how an inward global pressure would affect the tides. (Don't be fooled by the ellipse.)
No. You explain it. You are the one making the aabsurd claims. Explain why depression of the tides is 90 degrees out of phase with what your hypothesis predicts.
Also explain why you previously claimed the depression was beneath the moon, as angst pointed out.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2008 18:56:48
"since nobody seems to be on track to resolving something."
Well, I'm trying to resolve something, specificly the answers to some questions. Just as a reminder here they are again.
WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT IF IT ISN'T GRAVITY;
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES;
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE AND
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT
Feel free to answer them or, perhaps at least accept the you are ignoring them because they (like a lot of the real world) get in the way of your theory.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/03/2008 14:57:52
What” absurd claims” are you talking about, Ophi? The moon does what it does. I didn’t claim that pressure is going to make the moon or the tides act any differently than they are known to do, or as they would under some other “method”. I’m saying that the way the tides work is exactly how they do it under the pressures generated as my theory could only predict within Einstein’s Cosmological Constant.

 What is happening to the tides is attributed to a “Force” called gravity, (though a ‘force” is only a “cause”). Neither a ‘force”, nor a “cause” is a kind of “energy”, (which is needed to perform “work”), so a “cause” does not do work, (unless it has energy conveying it. ) But there is no proven means of conveying this “cause” to its intended ‘work”, so this force which is only a cause, with no way to get to work, does nothing at all, and still, “gravity” keeps getting the credit, even in the face of the highly plausible truth, which the obstinate simply refuse to even consider, even though it’s from Einstein.

When will people wake up to another possibility that is completely logical in how it pushes the tides; and is not based on something that is pure theory? Since the new logic is complete and explainable, (WHICH THE GRAVITY THEORY IS NOT, after 320 years), then the new logic is right, and the old logic is wrong in some way, or they are BOTH wrong. Which likelihood would a sensible mind assume?

 If the tides are being pushed by something, in concert with the motion of the moon, (instead of tides being “pulled”), and the moon is running in an elliptical orbit, then the pushing pressure will be greatest at perigee, which is when the Moon is closest to Earth.

Perigee (Close to Earth) = High pressure = high push = low Neap Tides
Apogee (Far from Earth) = Low pressure =low push = high Spring Tides = Full Moon and New Moon.

That, is how the tides work. Check an online working model and you will see that what they have constructed to show a “pulling gravity” at work, is the same as how the model would look if the tides are pushed as described above.

My theory is all based on a proven Cosmological Constant that came from the mind of Einstein in the 20th century. Your theory came from the mind of another genius too, but he never thought about the things Einstein did, and negative pressure was not discovered until 2005, so Newton didn’t have all the cards to play a full hand.

The newly confirmed Cosmological Constant explains all orbits, as it does our moon and the tides. It more broadly explains Newton’s 3rd law at event size scales that had no meaningful way of doing that. Coulomb’s Law and Pascal’s Law fit right in where they have to be considered.

The Constant is UNIVERSAL. That means that if it’s used to try to explain cosmological anomalies that do not fit Newton, or even relativity, it will likely answer many questions that haven’t even come up yet.

The Constant works with the Inverse Square Equation, because the answers that we have been getting to that equation are all the answers to measurements that the “adoption” of Einstein’s Constant would produce. We have been using math that is correct, but credited to the wrong physical reasoning.

Here are the questions posed by BC, with the answers to “if it isn’t gravity?”:

WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT? – A universal constant system. (A“Plasma”).
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT– A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).

Negative Pressure simply “replaces gravity”. There is no universally mutual attraction within matter. It all “pushes”, or expands, or even contracts, as the universe requires. (It’s like the universe is “breathing”, as I see it.)

Most spatial bodies are round, and a globally-exerted external pressure makes more sense as a reason for that “coincidence” than does “accretion”.

 Negative Pressure probably falls under “fluid plasma”, which permits/performs/allows, and even causes a variety of things universally. (See “Common plasmas” in Wikipedia. Take a look at the properties of Plasmas and you will see that plasma is the only universally interstitial thing that qualifies to be an “environment”, a “conveyor”, a “worker”, or just about anything that it needs to be.

Now. I have answered the questions of BC and Ophiolite. Have you two the courage to assemble a reasonably complete logical argument (for a change), that absolutely proves Einstein wrong, which would then prove that I am wrong too? I could accept that. If you won’t accept that challenge, and insist on just sidestepping again, then you have lost this thing that you have turned into a needless debate, instead of helping it grow into an intelligent search for a logical truth.

You will be happy to know that I will not even try to pursue this all the way into the incredible complexities of plasmas. My major points have been made and logically proven. No complete argument has been presented (from your side) that has borne evidence that gravity is able to perform "work" of any kind. My argument is complete, (in that small area), and the gravity argument is not. When somebody finds  a real "graviton" to plug the pin-sized hole that is slowly sinking your battleship, I will be there with my hat held to my chest and my head bowed.

If the coffin catches up to me before the real evidence starts trickling in, I won’t have any problem going down while my headstone is saying that I was “barking mad”.  I just don’t want it to say that I was, “blind as a bat, going out in the noonday sun”.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2008 18:49:12
"WHAT KEEPS THE SUN IN ORBIT? – A universal constant system. (A“Plasma”).
WHAT MOVES THE TIDES? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHY DO WE NOT FLOAT AWAY INTO SPACE? – A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
WHAT MOVED THE BALLS IN THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT– A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”).
"
Fleep, as you may be aware, the word "plasma" already has 2 uses in science. Introoducing a third use is, at best unhelpful.
I propose that you choose a more generally accepted word for the "thing" that causes those effects.
If you happen to choose to replace the phrase "A universal constant system. (A “Plasma”)." with the word "gravity" then it seems all our past disputes have been matters of nomenclature.


Incidentally, like many othre things you have proposed as reasons for things traditionally ascribed to gravity, the cosmological constant is small. That's why, as you say, it was only recently discovered. It is, of course, far too small to have anything to do with the tides, moon, orbiys of the planets etc except as a barely measurable correction. Insisting otherwise is roughly equivalent to saying that a few tiles came off my roof the other day, not because of the gale that was blowing, but because the moon's reflected radiation pressure had previously held it in place, but a cloud got in the way.
"Barking mad" seems a reasonable layman's description. Not being able to see this probably counts as "blind as a bat" as well.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 06/03/2008 00:05:24
Fleep you are making claims without substantiating them.  As BC says the cavendish and eotvos experiments proved universal gravitation in the lab to a high degree of accuracy and the motion of allsorts of bodies in space confirm this. to be taken serously you need to do a lab experiment to prove your theory numericaly and explain quite clearly where the other experimenters got it wrong.  Without this all your words are pointless.

One addition to your terminology  you describe gravity as a pressure.  A pressure acts in all directions and is a scalar quantity unlike gravity where the force is a vector in one direction so your use of the term pressure is incorrect in normal physics.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 12/03/2008 15:37:27
Hi;

Just thought I'd let you all know that I have the answer now, and I thank all those who contributed any "help" of any kind at all, even if some of it was painful to me. We learn from everything, including our mistakes.

Obviously I'm not about to dump a very important discovery into an open public forum of any kind, and I apologize for this, but the (apparently completely logical) answer will be out there "soon".

I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe.

Thanks again.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: angst on 12/03/2008 23:47:40
Hi;

Just thought I'd let you all know that I have the answer now, and I thank all those who contributed any "help" of any kind at all, even if some of it was painful to me. We learn from everything, including our mistakes.

Obviously I'm not about to dump a very important discovery into an open public forum of any kind, and I apologize for this, but the (apparently completely logical) answer will be out there "soon".

I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe.

Thanks again.

fleep

I thought you claimed that you already did have the answers. And you seemed very keen to share those ideas upon these boards......As I recall, it was not you that asked the questions, it was you who failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the questions asked of you. So (in short) what are you on about?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/03/2008 18:41:12
He's just realised that his ideas just don't work or produce what is actually observed in practice and is finding a quiet exit route.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2008 20:45:14
I don't much care what his exit route is just as long as that daft idea doesn't come back to taint any scientific site.

"I expect of course, that the shells will keep exploding in my wake, as I sail over the horizon with my treasure, trying to find a port where it will be valued and safe."
Don't worry, it's safe already. Nobody is going to steal junk. Getting anyone other than yourself to value it might be more tricky.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Ophiolite on 28/03/2008 12:41:24
Getting anyone other than yourself to value it might be more tricky.
I valued it as superior entertainment to Coronation Street.  [:)]
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/04/2008 00:28:22
 Hi folks;

What Would Make Apples Fall Down?©

In a simpler world, it would seem obvious to many that if gravity had never come along, apples just fell because of their weight. Then, along comes “gravity” and all of a sudden, the consideration and even the definition of weight has to include some new and fictional “attractive force”.

How come the atmosphere weighs trillions of tons, and it’s all sitting on top of our oceans at 14.7 pounds per square inch, but all that weight is just air that falls around me, sitting over my head and shoulders, and yet, science doesn’t insist on adding that to my weight? That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not? In fact, it would make much more sense since MY weight presses down.

But that isn’t always the way science thinks. Modern scientists are getting into the heavy stuff, and one of the latest promising things is Negative Pressure.

Think about that while I’m finalizing my theory, which seems to make sense.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2008 07:07:20
"That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not? "
No, it wouldn't. Pressure in a fluid acts in all directions.
Sorry to kill your new idea so early.
Feel free to dream up a new one.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/04/2008 12:37:48
Hi BC;

The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere, with 75% of its weight. Pascal's Law, (of which you are quoting a convenient portion), is speaking of fluids in a closed vessel. Please explain the "vessel" that applies in this case, and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: angst on 03/04/2008 16:13:44
In a simpler world, it would seem obvious to many that if gravity had never come along, apples just fell because of their weight.

Sorry? Fell where, because of their weight? What is weight? Why would something that weighs fall anywhere? Doesn't the Earth weigh something? Where is it falling to? Or the Sun, for that matter?

What are you babbling about?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/04/2008 18:05:03
Hi Angst:

So you're off again, avoiding the questions and having to provide intelligent answers. I'm not getting into all that elementary crap again. Just address my question please. If you know it. Thanks.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2008 18:33:12
Fleep, the observable fact is that the air presses up as well as down.
Here's an explanation of the experiment to prove it.
The site is aimed at schoolchildren which give an idea of your level of understanding of physics..
http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/ssd/2002/ssdwater.html
Saying that I didn't quote the whole of Pascal's law is not relevant. It not only works for a closed vessel, it works in the particular example you refered to.
So
"Please explain the "vessel" that applies in this case,"
There is no vessel, there is no need for one.
And
"and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down."
That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several thigs can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up?


The answer to how does it press up on you whne most of you isn't a horizontal surface is a matter of the resolution of forces and I'm not wasting my time explaining that to someone who clearly doesn't, or won't, understand the basics.

You are at least as guilty as Angst of ignoring the question.
He asked where things fell to?, in effect, which way is down?
None of your ramblings before managed to address this point and you haven't done so now.
In order to get taken remotely seriously you need to explain how things know which way to fall.
Also, "That would make as much sense as adding an “attractive force” from underneath me, would it not?"
No, it wouldn't. The force is perfectly sensible - it's there it's called gravity and everyone knows it. You on the other hand rattle on about forces so small that there's not even any certainty they exist, and pretend that in some way they are responsible for weight.

While we are at it I notice the thread's title has changed from the clearly preposterous "Is gravity even real" to the slightly less clearly defined "Is gravitation even real".
Nice attempt at sleight of hand, but I don't see it fooling anyone.

Why are you wasting time and bandwidth with this daft idea again?
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 03/04/2008 21:17:44
Hi BC;

You said: “Fleep, the observable fact is that the air presses up as well as down.”

Correct. That is, it’s correct if the face (s) that would be facing into the open atmosphere would have atmospheric pressure around them, but, if the object is heavy, and sunk a bit into the mud, and it’s level, and there is no space under it, then where is the equal atmospheric pressure supposed to be in place underfoot to be accommodated to push up? There’s no air space there underfoot. We and everything else just push down on the ground because we have all the atomic weight within us, which needs no help from “gravity”.

I’ll play your silly game about the kids experiment too.  If you try it yourself, you’ll notice that the lid
Re:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/ssd/2002/ssdwater.html
stays on all right, for a short time. The air pressure can’t push through the cup’s bottom of course.  As soon as outside air pressure starts leaking in from the underside at the edge, (which is NOT sitting on the ground), the air bubbles upward to the upward-facing bottom, and starts to fill the cup with air pressure. As soon as the inside air pressure becomes strong enough to push the weight of the water out, it does so, and the weight of the water falls by itself (without gravity) to the ground. The number of PSI leaking in that it would take to push the water out would not be much.

“Saying that I didn't quote the whole of Pascal's law is not relevant. It not only works for a closed vessel, it works in the particular example you refered to.”

So then, I can just break the rules of science like you are, and say, for example, “For every action, there’s another one”, without specifying the full explanatory text of the 3rd Law? I think you had better ask Blaise why he bothered to include the “closed vessel part” if it doesn’t matter.
By saying that a closed vessel is not needed here, (where I’m standing), you are saying that the atmosphere is a closed vessel. It would have to be, to be able to hold its own weight down on our planet, so everything inside that closed vessel would also be a closed vessel. I’m a closed vessel, and so are you, because our cells are all closed, and they obey Pascal’s Law. What makes the atmosphere a closed vessel? Why it’s the external pressure being applied, which will be revealed in my theory if it passes high academic scrutiny.

“There is no vessel, there is no need for one.”  Now you’ll have to tell me why.

And, “and how the "equal" pressure is also pushing upwards under my feet while "gravity" is pulling me down." I answered that in part, up above, and the rest follows, so let’s go on.

“That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several things can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up? “

That’s a cop-out. You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. Now you’re implying that it’s centripetal force or some other fabricated idea that was needed to help explain gravity. Sure it’s Newton’s Law, but if there is a (centripetal) FORCE, like any other force, it needs an energy transfer to fulfill the 3rd Law. Wiki says “Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) can act as a centripetal force.” They forgot to mention “pressure”, as in atmospheric weight that bears down on everything, and don’t forget that our atmosphere is true “weight”, (without any “gravity influence”).

"The answer to how does it press up on you when most of you isn't a horizontal surface is a matter of the resolution of forces and I'm not wasting my time explaining that to someone who clearly doesn't, or won't, understand the basics."

And I wouldn’t either if I were you. Luckily, I know exactly what you’ll resort to next, by now.

"In order to get taken remotely seriously you need to explain how things know which way to fall."

The answer to that is in this message. It’s “naked weight” under global pressure that knows no direction, so the weight goes where the atmosphere allows it to, which is straight down.

And It wasn’t me that changed the title. I don’t even know if or where that happened. I wouldn’t even know how to change a title in mid-thread. I guess the moderators did it, if it actually happened.

"Why are you wasting time and bandwidth with this daft idea again?"

I guess it’s the same reason that a tormented soul would even bother to reply to something he fears might be right. We’re both in the same boat, but I now have oars. You only have a hypothetical “graviton”.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: angst on 04/04/2008 14:58:20
Why do you think, fleep, that atmospheric pressure is higher closer to the surface of the Earth than away from it? What is it that makes the atmosphere cling to the Earth? Why doesn't it, for example, cling to the Moon, or to Mars to the same degree?

Why does something 'weigh' more on the Earth than on Mars? Weight, you have provided, is a given - yet clearly it matters upon which body you weigh the item.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: BenV on 04/04/2008 18:14:29
Fleep, wouldn't your atmospheric pressure suggestion imply that if we stepped out of a plane at high altitude, with lots of atmosphere underneath us, we would, in fact, not fall?

You are making a huge intellectual leap every time you say something like "We and everything else just push down on the ground because we have all the atomic weight within us, which needs no help from “gravity”." - Why would mass push down on something? You include gravity in all of your hypotheses and just pretend it's not there.

Also, what keeps the atmosphere around the earth?  If it isn't held on by gravity (and therefore of higher pressure closer to the earth) then why doesn't it just drift off?  How can atmospheric pressure push down without a 'down' defined by the attractive force of gravity?

Your ideas do not hold water.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 04/04/2008 19:53:54
Hi critics:

We All Want to Know What Down Really Means in Science

“Down is defined as that direction which an object moves in reference to the Earth when the object is allowed to fall freely.”

So, if an apple that is at rest simply begins to fall from a tree, and it is acting under the influence of the burden of the atmosphere, (which is 14.7 PSI at sea level), and it changes velocity as it drops; (32 fps, then faster); then the 1st Law cannot apply, Since it is accelerating, the 2nd Law applies.

The falling of the apple then is not the action itself. It is an “incident” that triggers the action. How the 3rd Law is fulfilled will be covered below. The apple’s state of inertia did not begin until the apple’s stem broke off the tree, which is when the necessary “force” kicked in. That “force” was the result of the existence of the surrounding atmosphere.

Newton’s 1st Law – “A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless a net force acts upon it.” This law is often simplified into the sentence "An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force".

 If no net force* acts on a particle, then it is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, (as defined by the 1st Law), observed when the particle moves without any change in velocity. But since the *“net force” is mass x acceleration, (2nd Law), and there is acceleration as it falls, then an inertial reference frame cannot be used.

Newton’s 2nd Law – “The net force on a body is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration.”

Wikipedia says: “Since an inertial reference frame is defined by the 1st Law, asking a proof of the first law from the second law is a logical fallacy.” I.e. - If the 2nd law demands acceleration, which is a change of velocity, but the 1st Law demands a constant velocity, then that is illogical.

So, since a net force IS acting on the apple, an Inertial Frame of Reference cannot be used in the case of a falling apple, and the 2nd Law can only be used without a frame of reference.

Under the section called “The three laws in detail”, Wikipedia begins the detail of the 2nd Law by saying; **“Observed from an inertial reference frame, etc.” This defies what they already told us we could not do. We cannot use an Inertial Frame of Reference for the 2nd law because:

1)   – There is a net force acting on the apple. (mass x acceleration)
2)   -  The apple is accelerating as it falls, so
3)   -  Acceleration is not a constant velocity, so
4)   -   An Inertial Frame of Reference cannot be used for the 2nd Law.

Wikipedia thus redeems itself (of the fallacy shown at ** above) in this regard by saying:

“In the given interpretation mass, acceleration, and, most importantly, force are assumed to be externally defined quantities. This is the most common, but not the only interpretation: one can consider the laws to be a definition of these quantities. Notice that the second law only holds when the observation is made from an inertial reference frame, and since an inertial reference frame is defined by the first law, asking a proof of the first law from the second law is a logical fallacy.”

(The explanation of this fallacy ends here. The foregoing is my evidence to myself thus far, that I let you see that I comprehend what I have just analyzed, before proceeding.)


In Motte's 1729 translation (from Newton's Latin), the second law of motion reads:

“LAW II: The alteration of motion (acceleration) is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.”

From the initial observation and the foregoing interpretation of Newton’s 3 Laws, it would appear that we are left wanting when we apply the 2nd law to what occurs when an apple falls from a tree.

If a falling apple is accelerating, it is by the means of a constant force. It has a vector, which is both magnitude and direction. The magnitude is the length or distance covered by the falling apple. The direction is obviously down.

The apple falls downwards naturally, with the weight of the atmosphere having the only effect. Although the apple would be surrounded by the atmospheric pressure of the same intensity all around it, (but only if the apple was at rest in the air); the falling apple’s exterior pressure reading would be subject to nothing but the atmospheric pressure (only) on the bottom of the apple as it falls, because the side and top pressures would be “falling away” as the apple dropped, then instantly refilling with air, (which would fulfill the 3rd Law.)That would mean that the apple, (if falling,) must go in the direction of least (pressure)resistance, which in this case, is downwards, where the pressure is continuously and momentarily the least. Assemblages of collective atomic weights can move in no other direction than down, when they begin to fall, and they need no help from any “attraction”.

The foregoing may be the most basic answer as to how one could define the directions of “down” or “up”, as opposed to any other geometrically inclined directions.

None of this process demands a lot of thinking or any presence of something Newton called “gravity”.

Here, once again is my Model 1, which explained much of this back on November 18th, 2007 in my message 139967, but obviously did not do it well enough.

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., up and down.
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' at the same pressure 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 32 fps/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 and pressure 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 (columnar) 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”.



Yes. I think I understand the meaning of both “up” and “down”.

Thanks for your patience.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2008 17:56:17
"and sunk a bit into the mud" So the mud's fluid...
"So, if an apple that is at rest simply begins to fall from a tree, and it is acting under the influence of the burden of the atmosphere, (which is 14.7 PSI at sea level), "
As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air so the air pressure clearly has nothing to do with it.
"“Down is defined as that direction which an object moves in reference to the Earth when the object is allowed to fall freely.”"
That's a usefull start. Now what happens when something is dropped by someone on the moon? It still falls down, but not towards the earth. the thing tahe tells it which way to fall (and how fast) is gravity.

"You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. "
No I didn't. Gravity is perfectly clearly holding us down. I said that the reason we don't add the force that the air exerts on you to your weight is that the pressure force isn't up or down, it acts so as to squash you equally in all directions.

"Here, once again is my Model 1, which explained much of this back on November 18th, 2007 in my message 139967, but obviously did not do it well enough."
It was wrong headed then, it still is. Repeating it doesnt make it any better.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 05/04/2008 20:47:36
BC;

"As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air"
 
Are you cracking up? There's no friction in the vacuum. Stuff whips through it at 17500 MPH and more. Everything is falling or orbiting out there, and nothing that's falling is only going at 32 fps/sec.

"Now what happens when something is dropped by someone on the moon? It still falls down, but not towards the earth."

Why would it fall towards the Earth? Why would it fall any direction but straight down? Like on the Earth, it has to be accelerated in another direction to make it go in any other direction than down, and nothing is attracting it downwards. The external pressure that I still have not explained to you is directing it downwards under Pascal's law. That explanation will make it all clear, and I'm not just dumping it into this forum. It needs expert appraisal (and hopefully affirmation) which obviously seems unavailable here.

BC said that I said: "You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. No I didn't."

 No, you're right. I can't even find where I am alleged to have said that, but if I did, I'm sorry. I guess I must have misread however I thought you said that. I know that is certainly not something you would say. It's pressure all right, but it's not air pressure.

"I said that the reason we don't add the force that the air exerts on you to your weight is that the pressure force isn't up or down, it acts so as to squash you equally in all directions."

Which is why I had to remind you that you can't be pushed upward from underneath when you're standing in mud.

You said of my Model1:" "It was wrong headed then, it still is."

How many times have you been invited to logically "trash it"? Insults expressed without validity are a cheap ploy my friend. Trash it, then we'll talk.

"That's all folks."

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2008 20:25:09
Fleep, I'm puzzled that you couldn't find this.

“That's straightforward Newton's 3rd law. The fact that several things can exert a force on the same body isn't anything complicated- why even bring it up? “

That’s a cop-out. You said it was air pressure around everything holding us down. Now you’re implying that it’s centripetal force or some other fabricated idea that was needed to help explain gravity. Sure it’s Newton’s Law, but if there is a (centripetal) FORCE, like any other force, it needs an energy transfer to fulfill the 3rd Law. Wiki says “Any force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) can act as a centripetal force.” They forgot to mention “pressure”, as in atmospheric weight that bears down on everything, and don’t forget that our atmosphere is true “weight”, (without any “gravity influence”).

""As has been pointed out at nauseam before, thing fall pretty much at the same rate in a vacuum as in air"
 
Are you cracking up? There's no friction in the vacuum. Stuff whips through it at 17500 MPH and more. Everything is falling or orbiting out there, and nothing that's falling is only going at 32 fps/sec."
No, I'm not. Things in a vacuum chamber near the eathh's surface accelerate downwards at about 33 feet per second per second. That do pretty much the same in air.

"Why would it fall towards the Earth?"
Beacause that's how you chose to define "down".

"Which is why I had to remind you that you can't be pushed upward from underneath when you're standing in mud."
Bollocks - see Newton (III)


"How many times have you been invited to logically "trash it"? Insults expressed without validity are a cheap ploy my friend. Trash it, then we'll talk."
OK it totally fails to explain anything which is a catastrophic fault for a theory. In particular, it cannot be relevant anywhere apart from earth. Even on earth it's not applicable to things in a vacuum.


Overall, your peoblem seems to be that you think air pressure has something to do with why we stay here on the earth. It has, but only indirectly; the earth's gravity pulls on us and it pulls the air.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 07/04/2008 05:35:05
I'm concerned for your mental health fleep, i think you should see a psychologist.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 07/04/2008 13:58:22
Hi BC;;



You said: "Things in a vacuum chamber near the eathh's surface accelerate downwards at about 33 feet per second per second. That do pretty much the same in air."

Yes they do. I assumed you meant a spatial vacuum.

If the apple was falling on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, then no atmosphere would be involved or affected, but what is called the “centripetal force”, which is supposed to be “oriented toward the axis of rotation” (according to Wiki), is credited with the direction of fall, so under the current belief system of Newton’s “gravity church”, (to which I don’t belong), “down” means the same on the Moon as on the Earth, or anywhere else. You are obligated to believe that because you belong to his church. I believe that for a different reason. 

A “centripetal force”. It is not (of itself), even a real force, as they admit. Energy goes to work to serve “forces”. Energy does not work for something that has nothing but a catch-all name, like a “force requirement”, as Wiki calls it. Thus, if centripetal force has no energy delivery-system of its own, it is not a “force” at all, and you certainly can’t go ascribing any kind of performance to it. From this viewpoint, the term “centripetal force” means nothing, (even in true Science), because Science has already “covered” their “gravity” and other” forces” under their own definitions.

If something is genuinely happening to “direct the force inward”, as the centripetal force term says, then that “something” is a true form of globally-applied energy, fomented by the presence of a real force. That force is obviously commanding a downward pressure upon us and the oceans. It is not the atmosphere that holds us down. It's an external pressure. That is why we don’t fall off the Earth, the Moon, or any other spatial body, and “centripetal force” means nothing for the reasons stated.

Atmospheres and vacuums are incidental next to the consideration of external pressure, and gravity still has no job to do at all.

Thanks

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2008 20:05:19
"If the apple was falling on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, then no atmosphere would be involved or affected, but what is called the “centripetal force”, which is supposed to be “oriented toward the axis of rotation” (according to Wiki), is credited with the direction of fall, so under the current belief system of Newton’s “gravity church”, (to which I don’t belong), “down” means the same on the Moon as on the Earth, or anywhere else. You are obligated to believe that because you belong to his church. I believe that for a different reason.  "

That's simply not true.
The effect of rotation is small. Gravity is pretty much the same at the poles as at the equator so the reason for things falling down on the moon can't be that.
It can't be the air which isn't there and it can't be the moons rotation or it would not work at the poles.
So all that stuff about centripetal forces is a waste of time (quite a lot of it's also meaningless "Energy goes to work to serve “forces”. Energy does not work for something that has nothing but a catch-all name, like a “force requirement”, as Wiki calls it.")
It's real btw.
http://xkcd.com/123/

Eventually you realise that "force is obviously commanding a downward pressure upon us and the oceans." Well, strictly it's just a force not a pressure because it doesn't depend on area but whatever- that's an easy mistake to make.

The point is that this commanding downward force is called gravity except by you who calls it an "external pressure".






Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 13/04/2008 00:01:56
Hi BC:

BC said; "That's simply not true." ExactlY what part of my statement is "simply not true". You must be more explicit in your critique, or you will lose your credibility.

"The effect of rotation is small. Gravity is pretty much the same at the poles as at the equator, so the reason for things falling down on the moon can't be that." (What specific part of your point was "that" referring to?)

"It can't be the air which isn't there and it can't be the moons rotation or it would not work at the poles."

I've been thinking about what you said (above), and it's caused me to wonder why you would make such a presumptuous claim. Please give me a precise explanation of why you think that your asssumption would be true.

I need something to build on. Thanks for your assistance.

fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2008 13:32:38
BC said; "That's simply not true." ExactlY what part of my statement is "simply not true". You must be more explicit in your critique, or you will lose your credibility.

I don't think I need credibility lessons from you and, as practically anyone reading it would see, the bit I quoted is the bit that's simply not true. The apple on the moon falls due to gravity so all that stuff about centrifugal forces is not true.

By "that" I was refering to the moon's rotation.
The reason for things faalling on the moon cannot be due to it's rotation because things fall at the poles. precisely at the pole the rotation doesn't give rise to any motion at all so the effect is the same as if it were stationary.
Since things fall there, it can't be due to the moon's rotation. It must be something else and that something is called gravity.
Here's the evidence that there's a gravitational pull, even above the poles.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/smart/smartatmoon.html
Pointing out reallity isn't persumption.

What you need to build on is a grasp of basic science.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: khayden on 24/05/2008 10:39:08
BC .. from an impartial observer, .. your irresponsible style of debate gives you no credit at all, you were unable to defeat fleep by argument so you began insulting him. This is a clear act of submition, not to his theory but to his debating superiority.  fleep is clearly attempting to open a string of debate, he didn't pilot the Enola Gay!! stop acting like a little boy (forgive the pun) and allow open debate, the secret is accepting you MAY be wrong!!  .. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND MAN! you are the problem not the solution!
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2008 13:49:57
"your irresponsible style of debate gives you no credit at all,"

Actually people have credited me for it.
"you were unable to defeat fleep by argument "
Actually, I did. He has yet to answer my points.
"so you began insulting him"
Actually, six pages back I began with this


"Now I must ask: If weight alone makes every molecular body fall, either in space, or in any atmosphere, then where is the need for another force that we call “gravity”? If it does exist as a force, it would seem to be an atomically external effect only, which is said to “attract” other matter.
"
Since weight is, by definition, the force of gravity on an object, I think this question has problems.
"Now, why would a force called gravity even be required? Matter is electrical in nature, and the measurement between point charges under Coulomb’s Law produces a result that equates to Newtonian math."
It's true that Coulomb's law and Newton's law have the same form ie they are both inverse square laws. However most of the time we see objects that are electically neutral overall. To take a simple example HCl is a gas which has a distinct dipole to it, the Cl is slightly negatively charged and the H is positively charged to the same degree.
However if you back off more than a few times the size of the molecule then what you see is not the + charge or the - charge, but the overall effect. Since the charges are the same size (but oposite sign) and roughly as far away as each other they parly cancel out.
The overall effect is that dipole interactions fall off as the inverse cube of the distance.
Only gravity, which is always an attractive force (so far as we know) can have an effect at large distances.

"Perhaps they do things such as controlling our tides, an often suspiciously inconsistent happening attributed to “the moon’s gravity”, which is alleged to be only 1/6 as strong as our own."
What is inconsistent, nevermind suspiciously so, about the tides being driven by the gravity of the moon and sun?

And I'm still waiting for a meaningfull reply.

I'm not sure if I actually insulted him anyway, I have voiced opinions that he might not like, but I can evince them. This is more than can be said for his theories.
"This is a clear act of submition, not to his theory but to his debating superiority."
Trust me, it's not submission and I simply don't think he has a superior debating style.
"fleep is clearly attempting to open a string of debate,"
No, it's clear he wasn't. If he wished to engage in debate he would have replied to the questions. He didn't. Simply repeating bizarre notions without (or even in the face of ) evidence isn't debate - it's rambling. On this basis I think it would be hard to say he has the better debating style and that's why I don't consider pointing out his failings to be submission.

"he didn't pilot the Enola Gay!!"
No, the guy who did that was acting perfectly sensibly at the time and the bomb's effect on shortening the war probably saved more people than it killed directly.
"stop acting like a little boy (forgive the pun)"
Erm, I may be wrong but I think that the one effectively saying "I'm right and all of you are wrong" is the one acting like a little boy (and the pun is in poor taste).
"allow open debate"
I have tried to debate this but theother guy doesn't answer questions, he just raises irrelevant stuff.
"the secret is accepting you MAY be wrong!! "
I'm always prepared to accept that I might be wrong. Just as soon as anyone comes up with some real evidence.

"GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND MAN!"
OK you think insulting people is evidence of poor debating ability; what do you think about "SHOUTING"?


"you are the problem not the solution! "
The problem as I saw it was someone wasting the site's bandwidth and reducing its credibility by posting rubbish. It took a while but I put a stop to that.It seems perhaps that I am the solution.

In light of the fact that essentially everything you wrote was wrong, might I ask what you think your necromancy achieved?
Also, perhaps you might like to explain things like tides, satelites and other things that fleep's stuff fails to do rather than simpy attacking my style inacurately





 
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: lyner on 25/05/2008 12:52:18
Stop squabbling, you kids!
If Fleep could produce a theory as complete as Newton's, along with the relevant Calculations, Predictions, Evidence etc. etc. we would need to be worried.
As he hasn't, this is just good fun.
No point in losing yer rag.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:30:37
Post by: fleep on 11/03/2010 16:18:45
Hi folks;

Just resurrecting Cavendish to re-bury him.


Introducing the (Un-named) Experiment

Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions. If they are to be debated, present your questions first, please, so I can consider anything that did not occur to me. (Follow the description and draw what you “see”.)

1)   Fact – Mercury is a metal, in a fluid state, at room temperature.
2)   Fact -  Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids.
3)   Fact – Two separate samples poured from one bottle should look the same at the “meniscus”.
4)   Fact – We have 2 identical glass cones, each 3-1/4” high. They are inverted to each other.
5)   Fact – “A” has a 3/16” opening at the top, the cone tapering out to a 4-1/4” wide sealed-base.
6)   Fact – “B” has a wide 4-1/4” opening, tapering down the cone to an un-pierced solid base.
7)   Fact – “B” has a folded-downward fluid edge all around, against the glass.
8)   Fact – “A” has an absolutely flat surface, all the way across, demonstrating Pascal’s Law.
9)   Fact – “B” surface pressure is the same as “A”, because “B” must also meet Pascal’s Law.
10)   Fact – Both vessels are sealed shut at the bottom and open at the top.
11)   Fact – No change is ever visible in the two surface conditions from day to day.
12)   Fact – The surface configurations “prove”, whether the experiment is exactly level, or not.

Concluding:

A)   - Now, tell me please, why they are different, if Newton’s gravity is a universal “attractor”.
B)   - Both vessels should have a flat surface, or both should be “folded down” at the wall.
C)   - Neither has a typical (non-metal fluid) meniscus that is called “surface tension”.
D)   – Why(????) is there a difference between the two surfaces, if gravity always attracts?
E)   - If I have missed nothing here, we have the answer,which could not possibly have been deduced until after 2005. Mr. Cavendish can rest in peace among the "giants".

If you have nothing to debate, then I will be pleased to hear your explanation(s) of why my experiment must be correct.

Thanks to all who have helped me get to where my argument stands, over these few years.

Best wishes;

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2010 19:03:38
"Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions."
There's only one question that you ask and it's "Why(????) is there a difference between the two surfaces, if gravity always attracts?" which makes no sense whatsoever.

Also it somewhere between rude and pointless to ask us to comment on an experiment that you won't tell us about.
Why would we waste our time on the matter?
Speaking of wasting time, I will now waste some of mine by asking you to answer the questions I posed in this thread way back in '08.


Just to help you along the way "Two separate samples poured from one bottle should look the same at the “meniscus”." isn't true. If the bottles have different diameters then surface tension effects will make the mensicusses (menisci?) different.
Feel free to come back in a couple of years when you have had time to think about this some more.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:28:29
Post by: fleep on 11/03/2010 20:59:15
Well hello BC;

You sir, once again, have missed the point.

I have been telling you for a couple of years that surface tension is just a scientific facade, made to explain what still is not being looked at. We're not talking about "wet fluids" here. Mercury is a metal. It's not water, or oil, or any thing of any organic origin, or anything like these.I have answered all the reasons why Newton's gravity isn't real in the past, and even explained why, but u just don't get it.
I'm not going through all that again. Go back over my "Model about a 1 lb. square inch cube falling from the Karman Line" again, and tell me why I'm wrong this time. The experiment explains itself, and the claims that you made about surface tension have nothing to do with metals. That phrase just gets tossed around like it had real meaning. Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.

Here's a hint:

The global ocean surface is at 14.7 psi atm pressure. Now what would the surface pressure be if the oceans of the world were made of only Mercury? How would the Mercury surface look where it touched on every beach, where a tiny wave might raise a changing meniscus, if the wind could get a "Mercury sea" moving. Now, how would the surface look at the sea level of an open-top square crater (of any depth) in a cliff by the side of the sea?

Remember: If the cone's constant atm pressure entry-rate is 100 square feet square at the top, (or 14,400 sq. ins.) and only 1 square foot square at the bottom, (or 144 sq. ins.), the direct and indirect atm top-hole surface pressures would be altered (ostensibly)by 100 to 1, because all 14,400 sq inches of 14.7 PSI each, would descend at the crater-wall angle upon the 1 foot square of Mercury surface at 14,400 times what is sitting on the water of the beach. That pressure would be 211,680 lbs., AKA 94.5 Metric tonnes.

Would you not believe that the Mercury surface at the bottom of the crater would somehow look different in the crater, than on the beach as 94.5 tonnes tries its mightiest to get by the 1 foot square of Mercury surface? It will fold down the perimeter of the surface there, or at the bottom of any "shallower crater", like you can find in my experiment.

Try it again, please.

Thanks

Fleep

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 11/03/2010 21:33:26
If the cone's constant atm pressure entry-rate is 100 square feet square at the top, (or 14,400 sq. ins.) and only 1 square foot square at the bottom, (or 144 sq. ins.), the direct and indirect atm top-hole surface pressures would be altered (ostensibly)by 100 to 1, because all 14,400 sq inches of 14.7 PSI each, would descend at the crater-wall angle upon the 1 foot square of Mercury surface at 14,400 times what is sitting on the water of the beach. That pressure would be 211,680 lbs., AKA 94.5 Metric tonnes.



Erm, I can see a slight problem here. The pressure at the bottom of the cone of mercury will be determined simply by the vertical distance between the bottom of the mercury and the top of the mercury. The shape of the container and the amount of mercury in it does not make the slightest difference. You'll measure exactly the same pressure that you would get with a cylindrical column of mercury of the same height.

Also, you can't measure pressure in lbs, or tonnes. You'll have to use something like pounds per square inch, Pascals, or atmospheres. There are plenty to choose from.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-12 09:30:13
Post by: fleep on 12/03/2010 02:13:09
Well! Another geeezer like me. Welcome to the fray.

Quote
The pressure at the bottom of the cone of mercury will be determined simply by the vertical distance between the bottom of the mercury and the top of the mercury.

I distinctly stated that I was talking about the surface, not the bottom of the mercury deposit that existed in the hole. Of course the volume of mercury itself cannot be compressed by the overhead atmospheric pressure. I was speaking of the number of atm's from the top of the crater to the surface of the mercury's mass. The mass of mercury itself can weigh nothing more than the entire accumulation of all the atomic weights of which the mass is composed. As an analogy, how could a cluster of 10 marbles, each composed of 1000 single atomic weights, ever weigh a total of more than 10,000 atomic weight "units"? I'm looking at the mass as one "blob" that cannot weigh anything more than its total atomic weight. Adding atmospheric pressure to the genuine weight of any mass has never been correct. If an anvil comes in a box,you don't add the weight of the box to the weight of the anvil. Why would you add the weight of the atmosphere to the weight of the blob of mercury?
The atmospheric pressure is a separate mass. It goes all the way up to the Karman line, and under an ideal day condition, all cubic inches of each 1 square inch of atmospheric column weighs 14.7 psi on the ocean surface. That's the weight of the 62 miles high times all the 1" cubes reaching all the way down to the ocean surface at sea level. That's one individual mass. There, at the surface of the blob of mercury, another individual mass's weight determination begins. The air column is one mass and the mercury column is another mass. You cannot combine or confuse the two. The air column is just too heavy to not try and pass by the mercury mass, so it pushes the edges down, slips by it, and presses on the bottom of the "hole-bottom" beneath the mercury mass.
Are you going to acknowledge this, or stubbornly try to deny it, as everyone else seems to do?

You call youself "Geezer". I'm another one of those. It isn't all about "winning a debate". If I'm proven wrong, so be it. I will be smarter for having learned something that I previously could not see. If I lose, I lose. No problem. I'm old, and I'm going to die too sometime. No problem. If I'm right, that's OK. Maybe science will benefit,and that's a good thing for our grandchildren. We won't be here for long, if we won't take advantage of what reality is.
I'm stubborn too. I won't give up until I'm convinced by plain logical English. Now, tell me honestly please: Can you see what I'm trying to say?
Sorry for being maudlin.


Thanks for your help and company.

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 12/03/2010 04:12:44
LOL - I think I'll need a picture!
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2010 07:15:23
Fleep,
of course I missed the point. You deliberately failed to include it.
You even said you were going to do so.
You said
"Introducing the (Un-named) Experiment

Before you may see the experiment, you must truthfully answer these questions."
 Then yo only asked one question and that didn't make sense.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:31:44
Post by: fleep on 12/03/2010 09:35:31
Good morning.
I just deleted my last message to check it all and I'll be back today sometime. Just have to make sure of something before I get stomped again.

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:33:32
Post by: fleep on 12/03/2010 11:18:29
First of all, this is to make a clarification that I left in my earlier message that I just deleted. I’ll clear up one thing here, and re-check the rest as I go down the page.
 
In the very first recent message, I said that the crater by the beach was coming down through a cliff beside the beach. I meant at the water’s edge, of course, but then began to speak of it being 100 feet deep. That could leave the impression that the bottom of the 100 foot hole ends at sea level. What I am actually trying to explain is a 100 foot crater that is in a rock mass that starts downward from sea level, so the pressure concentration begins exactly at sea level, and ends at 100 feet below sea level. (If I’m going to talk about higher pressures than would exist at sea level, then I have to make clear that the blob of mercury only fills the bottom of the deep hole. Let’s call it a one foot deep blob of mercury that is sitting at the bottom of a 100 foot crater, whose top is at sea level, or, “the top of the hole is even with the ocean beach surface". Calling it a “cliff” must have given a wrong impression. Sorry for the confusion. Back to what I had said, and am now working to reinstate. My deleted message said this: (possibly now with attempts at further clarifications.) End of first clarification is here.
===============================================
Deleted message said:
I distinctly stated that I was talking about the surface, not the bottom of the mercury deposit that existed in the hole. Of course the volume of mercury itself cannot be compressed by the overhead atmospheric pressure. I was speaking of the number of atm's from the top of the crater at sea level, to the surface of the mercury's mass, 100 feet below sea level.

The mass of mercury itself can weigh nothing more than the entire accumulation of all the atomic weights of which the mass is composed. As an analogy, how could a cluster of 10 marbles, each composed of 1000 single atomic weights, ever weigh a total of more than 10,000 atomic weight "units"? I'm looking at the 1 foot deep mass as one "blob" that cannot weigh anything more than its total atomic weight. Adding atmospheric pressure to the genuine weight of any mass has never been correct. If an anvil comes in a box, you don't add the weight of the box to the weight of the anvil. Why would you add the weight of the atmosphere to the weight of the blob of mercury?
The atmospheric pressure is a separate mass. It goes all the way up to the Karman line, and under an ideal day condition, all cubic inches of each 1 square inch of atmospheric column weighs 14.7 psi on the ocean surface, which is "datum", or "sea level". That's the weight of the 62 miles high times all the 1" cubes reaching all the way down to the ocean surface at sea level. That's one individual mass. Now we have to consider the hole, which starts at that sea level, remembering that at 32 feet, we reach 2 atmospheres, etc.

So,100 feet down from sea level, at the surface of the blob of mercury, another individual mass's weight determination begins. The air column is one mass and the mercury column is another mass. You cannot combine or confuse the two. The air column is just too heavy at 100 feet down, to not try and pass by the mercury mass, so it pushes the edges down, slips by it, and presses on the bottom of the "hole-bottom" beneath the mercury mass.

(Here, I deleted my entire embarrassing blurb about mutual honesty).

What follows is new elaboration.

So. The 1 foot deep mercury blob is in the 1 foot square bottom of a 100 foot tapered square hole that is 100 feet square at the top. There is no water in the hole covering the mercury, but the weight of one atmosphere is now standing at 14,400 square inches, (at sea level), and must crowd down the crater for 99 feet to touch the surface of the 1 foot of mercury that is sitting on the bottom of the hole. The actual pressure on that blob can be calculated in atm's or pounds or whatever, but suffice to say that is greatly exaggerated from the 14.7 psi (times 14,400 sq.inches) at crater-top/sea level. So. The pressure pushes down the edges of the mercury mass as it goes around it and beyond into the ground.

The difference between what would a mercury blob and an equal volume of water would look like at 100 feet down in this crater, I think you would have to agree, would be VERY different, in the very same way that it does in the experiment on my workbench).

So. Going back to my earlier message to restate the fundamental question more explicitly:

Why is there a difference between the shapes of the two surfaces, in my two experimental vessels of mercury, if gravity always attracts? Should they not both be flat, or else both be pushed down slightly at the edges? They are both, of course sitting under the influence of something widely acclaimed as Newton's Gravitational Constant. There is no consistency in what we are looking at in the two vessels. The "emperor" has no clothes, but with all due respect, Sir Isaac's incredible genius could not have known this until Einstein's Cosmological Constant opened our eyes in 2005.


Thanks for your help, chaps. Sorry for the poor earlier explanation. Now, have I left anything out that I should have explained further?

Where does this leave the discussion now?

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2010 16:29:50
A nice clear diagram might possibly explain what you are talking about.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 13/03/2010 18:00:49
A nice clear diagram might possibly explain what you are talking about.

Yes please!
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:03:51
Post by: fleep on 13/03/2010 18:28:38
Well, you're right about the sketch, guys, and it's only fair of you to ask for one. I've maybe been a little embarrassed to explain why I don't understand how to attach a sketch or draw one in this forum, but now, I'll figure it out, and you'll hear from me when I get it. (1 hr.?, 1 day?, longer?....?)

Thanks

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:53:45
Post by: fleep on 14/03/2010 01:26:59
Holy cow. It worked! And, my drawing is like a Picasso, (sort of).

[diagram=572_0]

Now. The pit down into the rock is 100 ft square at the opening to the sky. It has 4 tapering angles coming to a 1 foot square bottom.
The atmosphere sitting on the sea of mercury is at the left. The short beach ends at the rock "sheath" that goes all the way around the square shape of the hole. The hole is like an upside-down skinny pyramid with a 100 foot square top, and 1 foot square bottom at 100 feet down.
The 1 cubic foot of mercury sits on the bottom ands spreads out a little at the top of the mercury "block" so it's slightly bigger than a square ft at the top of the mercury mass. (Now hang on.....)

(I'm back).I went to my shop and looked at my model with the wide open top that is the resemblance of the upside down pyramid, (the hole in the rock), and the mercury is "folding down" about 3/32 of an inch all around the perimeter of the mercury. The atmosphere is hitting the rim of the glass pyramid, and concentrating pressure down the angled walls, so the unfolded center of the mercury, or about 98% of the surface, is bulged upwards just a bit, ringed by an atmospheric concentration of pressure that's trying to get past the fluid mercury, so it's pushing the perimeter downwards.

To test a pressure change by removing the atm concentation down the angled walls of the open-top vessel, I put a heavy plastic cover right over the opening, sealing it off. The "folded edges" of the mercury block instantly disappeared (because I had now made the interior of that "closed upside down pyramid" into a closed vessel, that had no angular concentration of pressure). I whipped the plastic off, and the perimeter-depression instantly re-appeared, the same as what it would do in the hole beside the beach. The model works like the deep hole would work, but the deep hole would suffer a lot more atm pressure than the small model vessel,and the top of the mercury square foot "block" in the bottom of the hole would have a much wider/deeper edge depression than my model upside-down pyramid (or "cone") would do.
==============================================================

I mentioned at the start that it was a 2-cone test. The other cone("pyramid")faces wide-mouth down. The atmosphere enters only a small 3/16" hole from the sky, so the standing pressure on the mercury is very small under a 3/16" entry port, which is only 3/16ths of 1 square inch, so the standing pressure down the small hole is only 2.76 lbs., not 14.7 lbs. The edges around the shallower but equal volume of mercury in this wider-based vessel are absolutely flat and on the same plane as the center of the shallow sample in that second cone. I dumped that mercury volume out of the small holed vessel once before, into a regular vertical-sided beaker, just to compare, and the surface of the mercury in the beaker was absolutely flat. No surprise. Without angular atm pressure concentration down angled walls, the normal 14.7 lbs of every 62 mile high column of 1 inch square "cubes", all the way up and down each column, will sit at 14.7 lbs at Datum.
===================================================================
So. Here's the point of the experiment, just in case I haven't made it clear and visible:

On a metal "sea", the weight of the atmosphere will always be 14.7 lbs., everywhere on its mercury surfaces, and all non-angled perimeter coastlines would be flat without the presence of a concentration of atm pressure.

Vessel shape differences can only demonstrate what is really happening with sea water,if we can see and measure a difference at the "meniscus" of the oceans. If it's a perfect day all around the planet, and the entire planet's real water oceans are flat, then you will only see a motion of the water beneath the moon, as it comes over your head, (if you live in England for example), and it starts to PUSH the sea towards America, Canada,and other points north and south. The approaching angle of the moon is PUSHING the tides, as it's electromagnetic connection with the barycentre of the Earth, (somehow with the help of the Magnetosphere), bends the top of the atmosphere over a large ocean area below and ahead of itself,and the higher temporarily passing pressures send the tides away for about 6 hours. The moon's path lands at the US east coast, and voila! The tides roll back to England, arriving there twelve hours after they left. The same thing happens when the moon angles off over the Pacific coastline, heading for Asia, and points North and south.

Einstein's "Cosmological Constant", (and not Newton's Gravity which is completely without "gravitons" to suggest that it might exist), is PUSHING the tides, every night.

Einstein is the theorist of the "Cosmological Constant"; perhaps only because Sir Issac had no access to the technology of 2005, when Einstein's 220 year later theory was discovered to be "dark energy".
 
There can only be one universal "Constant". Einstein's works on the principle of (physically "allowable")instant energy conversion from the invisible and universal "cloud" of negative photons, (which also give us light). Photons are always waiting everywhere out there, and around us, as a "Force", which feeds off Newton's genius, which he called, "The 3 Laws of Motion". Motion foments conversion from negativity (of the diamagnetic Constant), to positivity, and the energy goes to work; e.g. pushing the tides,or even "assisting" the delivery of flying debris, in an explosive situation. All universal motion "belongs" to this facility and gets its energy to do work from the Cosmological Constant.

(See and understand the role of photons in "The Standard Model" on Wikipedia, or other reference sites).

I must apologize if this is lengthy and hard to understand. This is not professional expertise speaking. I am only a seasoned  amateur. I would be equally happy to learn that I'm wrong about something in this theory, but I'm afraid that I just might be right. I'm just too stubborn to quit.

Thanks for your patience.

Fire away, if you must.

Fleep.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 14/03/2010 07:20:09
Nice picky!

I don't think I fully understand the entire concept yet, but I did notice this:

"The atmosphere enters only a small 3/16" hole from the sky, so the standing pressure on the mercury is very small under a 3/16" entry port, which is only 3/16ths of 1 square inch, so the standing pressure down the small hole is only 2.76 lbs., not 14.7 lbs."

I believe there is a problem with that. Assuming the system is static (there is no air rushing in or out) the air pressure will still be around 14.7 lbs per square inch even if your chamber is only connected to the atmosphere by a 3/16" port, or any other size of port come to that.

The pressure within any fluid (including mercury) has a nasty habit of equalizing the pressure at a certain depth if it has any opportunity to do so.
 
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:23:57
Post by: fleep on 14/03/2010 11:00:40
Good morning;

I didn't explain that part very well, I guess.
The standing pressure through a tiny hole doesn't mean that the vessel would not get "filled" to the full 14.7 psi at sea level. Think of the situation as if the vessel was a vacuum that "suddenly popped open" at the small hole. The total gas-admission would be 14.7 in an instant, but it would have been admitted to equalization at the diminished rate of the the opening's possibility. The "gas-rush" and equalization would take a millisecond, but certainly, the vessel has to equalize to that of the common plane.

Thanks.

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2010 12:40:18
I'm still not sure what you are on about.
Does this "I went to my shop and looked at my model with the wide open top that is the resemblance of the upside down pyramid, (the hole in the rock), and the mercury is "folding down" about 3/32 of an inch all around the perimeter of the mercury. The atmosphere is hitting the rim of the glass pyramid, and concentrating pressure down the angled walls, so the unfolded center of the mercury, or about 98% of the surface, is bulged upwards just a bit, ringed by an atmospheric concentration of pressure that's trying to get past the fluid mercury, so it's pushing the perimeter downwards. "
refer to the fact that mercury has a nice obvious meniscus?


If so then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmosphere.


It would still have a practically identical curved meniscus in a vacuum.

Anyone who still has an old fashioned mercury barometer can confirm this for you.
It has little or nothing to do with  gravity or the tides.

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 14/03/2010 15:46:14
Rats! BC beat me to it.

I remember experiments we did in school with mercury (when it was still legal to do so) where a simple barometer was constructed from a straight glass tube sealed at one end, filled with mercury and inverted with the open end in a beaker of mercury.

The space above the column is a rather good vacuum and yet the meniscus is clearly convex, just as it is when exposed to atmospheric pressure.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:00:19
Post by: fleep on 15/03/2010 02:47:43
Hi;

I'm tired. been working on this since about noon. It's 10:40 PM now. Here goes.


           The Gentle Debate – Einstein vs. Newton
Gentlemen:

Can you see that in a vertical-sided tube, there is a downturn at the outer edges, whether the vessel is a beaker, or a test tube? Also, when you have a flare-topped vessel, such as seen at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)
the  edges are prominently seen to be well “bent” downwards. Look at the picture down the page with the pound coin sitting on the mercury.

Firstly, the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the perimeter condition or with anything else but the photo-maker’s display of how something “floats” on mercury, (and a pound coin was chosen, and (thus), the coin is redundant here).

Secondly, Mercury is diamagnetic. The Force of the Cosmological Constant is diamagnetic also. There is a “current” of positivity that must constantly exist between the two negativities, because that is what the job of the Constant (Force) does: It converts negativity to positivity, like a magnet does, as it slides slowly down inside a copper tube. I won’t take time trying to figure out what it’s doing to the coin because as I said, the presence of the coin is innocuous, but also, I don’t know the coin’s metallic composition.

Thirdly: Because there is a positive energy separation between the Constant and the mercury, we know that its energy-plane exists across the entire surface, right out to the edges, in all flat directions. Now, that is important.
Conclusion: Because the energy-plane goes all the way out to the edges, and it’s a repulsive energy because it has to be, (separating the redundant coin from the mercury as it does), then when it comes to the glass perimeter, it has a “push-down advantage, and it uses that advantage to round the metal’s edges down, The “advantage” stated, is that immediately at the glass, the fractional quantity of mercury that exists right against the uncaring glass’ chemistry, just “submits” to the energy’s strength, and “allows” itself to get “bent down” quite easily. The “energy-plane separator”, (if it could be seen) would look like a flat-topped surface with a convex underside. The edge height would depend on the how “thick” the energy plane would physically have to be “made” (by conversion), to do what it does in only this particular case of “work-needing- to- be- done”.
That takes care of what’s happening in vertical-walled and flare-walled (glass) vessels, and so, the other (tiny-opening in the top) vessel should now be a breeze to figure out. (I hope).

The flared-down vessel has a surface energy plane also, because it has to, (to separate the 2 diamagnetisms, as explained above). The surface pressure inside the vessel has to be the same as outside; 14.7 psi, (assuming we are performing at Datum). Regardless of the fact that the top opening is tiny, inside the flared-down vessel, there is no vertical “access” to the mercury’s surface at the point around the perimeter where the surface meets the glass. That is because the perimeter’s flare reaches up and away from the glass wall of the vessel. No extra energy is needed to push down the edges, so the Constant only has to convert enough energy (to positivity) to make the energy-plane “flat”, looking much like the edge profile of a coin that is as big as the inside perimeter of the vessel. The two diamagnetic “quantities” are thus held apart from each other, and so, the surface is flat, all the way across, in all directions.
(Some sophisticated university lab should be able to prove this with their multi-million dollar “tool-kits” and their abundance of genius.)
==================================================================
As far as your question about the mercury barometer goes, I guess this will turn out to be another surprise if what we’ve found so far is true. I just checked Wiki, and, glass is also diamagnetic. I suspected that it had to be, because if you fill a test tube with mercury and flip it fast into the open dish of mercury, guess what happens, (as I see it).
The glass and the mercury are both diamagnetic, so, the entire surface of all the glass is repelled by all the adjacent mercury, so there is an invisible “film” of energy (converted by the Constant), slipping all the way around and up the film from the open atmosphere, down through the “pond-dish, and up into the closed end of the inverted test tube, There is no vacuum in that space you see at the top of the barometer. It’s air.
==================================================================
With all due respect to Henry Cavendish’s elaborate experiment, it now seems clear that the two lead balls of great and tiny size were being “moved” by nothing but their mutual diamagnetism, which when twisting into motion, converted negative energy into positivity between them, thus making them seeming to be “attracted” by gravity, (or some such thing I will not pursue).
===================================================================

About home-made barometers: Obviously, I now do not agree, but here is what Wiki says is going on:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

“A mercury barometer has a glass tube of at least 33 inches in height, closed at one end, with an open mercury-filled reservoir at the base. The weight of the mercury actually creates a vacuum in the top of the tube. Mercury in the tube adjusts until the weight of the mercury column balances the atmospheric force exerted on the reservoir. High atmospheric pressure places more force on the reservoir, forcing mercury higher in the column. Low pressure allows the mercury to drop to a lower level in the column by lowering the force placed on the reservoir. Since higher temperature at the instrument will reduce the density of the mercury, the scale for reading the height of the mercury is adjusted to compensate for this effect.”

Torricelli documented that the height of the mercury in a barometer changed slightly each day and concluded that this was due to the changing pressure in the atmosphere.  He wrote: "We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of elementary air, which is known by incontestable experiments to have weight".”
I obviously also agree with Wiki and Torricelli about what he wrote in the last sentence.
================================================================

If you’re surprised, think how much I will be if I’m right.

Do you believe any of this yet, or do we have to dig deeper? If you don’t want to contest this, because you might not know enough about Einstein’s Cosmological constant, and/or the Standard Model and the like, then am I finished please? I’m getting old and forgetful, really fast.

Good night. Thanks for the help, my friends.

Fleep

Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2010 09:46:37
Well Fleep,
You have wasted a lot of time
If the person who took that picture had carefully cleaned the coin first it would have saved me a bit of effort but never mind.
Here are two images. One is a piece of zinc in a small bottle of mercury. The other is of a candle in a jar of water.
I have dyed the water pink to make it a bit clearer.
In the case of the mercury you can see that the meniscus is curved where it meets the glass or the zinc.
It curves up to meet the zinc and down (just like the pic you posted from WIKI) where it meets the glass of the bottle.

In the other picture things are the other way round. The water curves down where it meets the candle but up where it meets the glass.



Gravity is the same in all cases. All the materials (zinc, mercury, glass,wax, and water) are diamagnetic.

Clearly all these meniscus effects are nothing to do with paramagnetism or diamagnetism.

If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.
Of course, you would need to xray the barometer to read it- that's why they use glass.

Also, while Cavendish used mercury the experiment has been repeated many times since and with other materials.
Also it's relatively easy to measure the diamagnetism of mercury and allow for any effect it would have.
The most important point here is that the diamagnetic effect would not be an inverse square law.
Gravity gives an inverse square relation between the force and the distance (as  measured in experiments like Cavendish's) so gravity is clearly nothing to do with magnetism.

Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:07:57
Post by: fleep on 15/03/2010 12:12:25
Good morning;

A couple of things dogging me about your answer:

Right at the start since my inglorious return on March 11, you have been missing what I regard to be my “indisputable” statements, like:

“1)   Fact – Mercury is a metal, in a fluid state, at room temperature.
2)   Fact -  Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids.”

And – “We're not talking about "wet fluids" here. Mercury is a metal. It's not water, or oil, or any thing of any organic origin, or anything like these.”

And – “The experiment explains itself, and the claims that you made about surface tension have nothing to do with metals. That phrase just gets tossed around like it had real meaning. Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.”

So why are you introducing wax and “pink water”? They are a couple of non-sequiturs in this discussion. I’m not wasting another day trying to go back and re-prove what I re-opened with, in March 2010, that has become obvious over my long (hard-working) absence. If you’re going to disprove something, then go for my throat with real evidence please. Unproven opinion is where I started from, and I’m not going back to Sept 2007 when this thing started.

I’m dealing in Mercury, and that’s all. Sorry. No wet fluids. Soak it up.

 I will consider your statements like: “If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.” (I’ll think about what that means to my argument.)


Just think of it. I’m fighting with a proven Constant, and you are fighting with a theory that’s over 300 years old, and still remains one. Technology has GROWN. Each giant that stood on each other’s shoulders didn’t have to look as far back to see what was over the old horizons. I don’t know how tall Einstein was, or Newton either, but I’m sure one of them was a shorter giant. Understanding has nothing to do with physical stature.



 Sorry again. Now. About the Mercury and zinc. I can’t zoom or edit your picture of mercury and zinc, to clean it up. I use a jeweller’s “loop” to improve my old vision. I’ll have to test that myself so I can see what’s going on. I’ll get back. I still don’t claim that I’m absolutely spot-on, and if I hit the wall, then that’s my problem. Don’t send anything else until I address this please. It just confuses all directions.

Thanks. (Without malice).

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2010 12:38:41
Ho Hum
There's no such thing as a "wet" liquid.
You need to consider the thing they are wetting (or not).
Water wets glass, but not wax.
Mercury wets zinc but not glass.
Also, you say "Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.”"
Nonsense. the surface tension of mercury is about 485 mN per metre.
Perfectly real, meaningful and measurable.

In a slightly warm room gallium also is a liquid and it stick to glass like there's no tomorrow. The same is true for gallium indium alloys that are liquid at lower temperatures.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 15/03/2010 16:58:36
I used to solder printed circuit boards by dipping them into a bath of molten solder. That was forty years ago, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me, the liquid solder (tin/lead alloy) behaved just like liquid mercury.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2010 22:03:48
Good point. Molten solder doesn't stick very well to the plastic the boards are made from, but it does wet the copper tracks.

I'm still not sure what evidence Fleep is after.
I posted a picture that shows that mercury wets zinc.
That kills his idea that " Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids."

In any event you can get a positive or negative meniscus with mercury and other liquids, even when all the materials are diamagnetic.
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:56:51
Post by: fleep on 16/03/2010 00:03:16
Hey!

Now that's what I like. A paltry alliance of 2 guys devoted to misleading semantics. just because they won't admit to not understanding something or all of the Cosmological Constant, and/or, The Standard Model. Either that, or they're just unchanging old philosophers who pretend to be "scientists" that will help a raw student (like me), who wildly seeks to find out what is truth.

If you're going to quote from Wiki, say the whole thing:

"mercury is one of six chemical elements that are liquid at or near room temperature and pressure,[1][2] the others being caesium, francium, gallium, bromine, and rubidium. Mercury is the only metal that is liquid at standard conditions for temperature and pressure."

"the others" (above) are boondoggles.

Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 16/03/2010 02:17:14
Fleep:

I get it. You're saying your theory only applies at room temperature (whatever that is) and at sea level when atmospheric conditions are "just right", or is that just another red herring?

Oops! I forgot you won't be replying, so please ignore my question.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2010 06:57:44
He never answered questions reliably anyway.
I think he has gone off to sulk because he has realised that there's nothing "magic" about mercury.
Do you think he realises that there are "standard" conditions is precisely the same reason that those conditions are arbitrary.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Paradigmer on 16/03/2010 07:25:13
Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep

Hey! Come back!

Recently I was following your thread and did not want to barge in at the midst of your discussions.

In GR, gravity is a fictitious force, therefore you are right on from this perspective. Gravity in classical physics is merely a philosophical identity for subjective study of motion without addressing its causality.

I agree with your postulation for push effect of negative pressure in an electric universe and this could render the phenomenon of gravity. I am a fan of Hanes Alfven and your plasma sphere hypothesis also resonates with me. There was a group of researchers from The Electric Universe, but they were generally anti-Einstein, you are for Einstein and this makes you different from them and I agree with you on this.

I see you are trying to explain here the push effect that render the phenomenon of meniscus, generally, I think you are on the correct path, but the details would need to be ironed out, IMHO, diamagnetisms should not be mixed with the effects of gravitational force, despite they might be evolved from the same origin of cosmological constant like how you put it. I agree with your push explanation for tides and tidal force and I believe this is the reality; attraction force of gravity is as a result of an apparent paradoxical effect that is rendered in a delusion.

IMHO, motion would produce kinetic energy that could be converted into electrical energy, from this perspective where I am coming from, there is no conflict. This is where I would like to engage you in the discussion to address the causality of the electric universe or the plasma sphere cosmology.

What is your definition for field and how does it come about into existence and what is its causality?      
Title: Is gravitation even real? - Deleted by fleep at 2010-03-16 13:58:17
Post by: fleep on 16/03/2010 13:15:45
Vincent!

Where have you been?

It's too late now. I've purged my latest messages, and I'm abandoning the search. If you chase me down, I'll talk to you, but I won't waste a minute more in limbo.

Thank u for the lifeline, but I think I may have drowned already.

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: fleep on 16/03/2010 14:00:51
Vince:

Pls purge your message. Mine are gone.

Thanks

Fleep
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: Geezer on 16/03/2010 16:59:57
Fleep:

I think it's extremely bad form to delete all your posts from a thread. I will discuss your actions with the other mods.

I have restored your deleted posts, and I have also banned you.
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: syedbukhari39 on 16/11/2010 10:37:13
I want to start this topic once again to conclude a final result
Title: Is gravitation even real?
Post by: peppercorn on 16/11/2010 12:56:37
I want to start this topic once again to conclude a final result
You've already got your own running along very similar lines:
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=35194

For this reason alone this one will be locked.