Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Expectant_Philosopher on 10/04/2011 05:55:05
-
Is what we know as gravity actually the resultant force of two opposing forces?
The equation would be akin to: Fb - Fs = g. That is Force 'b' - Force 's' equals 'g' gravity. We might not be seeing the true picture when we try to explain gravity. It also holds out hope that were we able to increase Fs, we would decrease g. It may be why we measure gravity as a weak force, but widespread. The key then would be to recognize what generates Fs and what generates Fb and manipulate them to our advantage.
-
Is what we know as gravity actually the resultant force of two opposing forces?
The equation would be akin to: Fb - Fs = g. That is Force 'b' - Force 's' equals 'g' gravity. We might not be seeing the true picture when we try to explain gravity. It also holds out hope that were we able to increase Fs, we would decrease g. It may be why we measure gravity as a weak force, but widespread. The key then would be to recognize what generates Fs and what generates Fb and manipulate them to our advantage.
Hello E P,
The way I see it, the force of gravity is the end result of an extremely slow accretion of matter particles; we are here talking in millions of years.
The pushing out force was clearly established by Henry Cavendish over 200 years ago. In his now famous experiment he demonstrated that two mass-less point-sources run away from each other at a composite velocity of 6.67x10−9 metres per second, each contributing a velocity of 3.335x10−9 metres per second and each contributing to the repulsion of each other, or to the space extension existing in-between them. The velocity of 3.335x10−9 corresponds to the slope 1/c where “c” is the speed of light.
The pulling in force is generated by matter and that’s what we call force of gravity. Because of the above extremely slow accretion, this is a stable force well confirmed by the gravitating equilibrium in which the universe unfolds its own existence. I don’t think anyone can manipulate this force unless his life does hypothetically span over a couple of millions of years.
The third member of your equation, or better still what you call “the resultant force of two opposing forces” would be what today’s new scientific trend calls “dark energy”.
All of the above leaves no room for your suggested “manipulation”. You must of course bear in mind that this is the humble opinion of someone like yourself: we all like science, we all have our own opinion.
-
"The pushing out force was clearly established by Henry Cavendish over 200 years ago."
Cavendish demonstrated a force pulling things together.
He didn't have anything massless to work with (and we still don't).
I doubt he would have been able to observe anything moving at "6.67x10−9 metres per second".
-
"The pushing out force was clearly established by Henry Cavendish over 200 years ago."
Cavendish demonstrated a force pulling things together.
He didn't have anything massless to work with (and we still don't).
Hello B c,
I see, you never heard of Cavendish’s most famous torsion-bar experiment. Very surprising with all those posts behind you.
With his torsion-bar, Cavendish in 1798 established that two bodies separated by a distance attract each other due to gravitation, and he also established that when their masses are ignored the force of gravity in-between them becomes negative. That is, two hypothetical mass-less spheres in free space repulse each other at a finite speed of 3.335x10−9 for a total velocity of removal of 6.67x10−9. We are here talking of the universal gravitational constant (G).
Actually Cavendish performed his experiment in the quest to find the Earth’s density. However, after measuring the force, masses, and distance; the density, the universal gravitational constant (G) as well as the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth could be calculated. Please note, in order to calculate (G), Cavendish took away the weight of the two small lead spheres which weighted 0.73 kg each.
If you google “Cavendish experiment”, you may see that with the torsion-bar Cavendish used two small and two large lead spheres.
To show the negative nature of (G) here is Newton’s formula for the force of gravity:
m1 m2
F = G ————
d2
the equation in question consists of five members: the force of gravity, the constant G, the distance between the Earth and the Sun (d) and two body-masses, one of the Earth (m1) and the second one of the Sun (m2). If we care to solve the equation as it stands and then solve it once more without the constant G, we shall find, even if very small, a difference between the latter and the former solution corresponding to the universal gravitational constant which we have purposely excluded the second time around and which, strictly speaking, is the sum total of the effect of the constant G spread all along the distance between the Earth and the Sun. This clearly shows that Cavendish's constant is a repulsive force whose absence would create a much stronger force of gravity between the Earth and the Sun, strong enough, I may add, to force our wonderful planet to fall spiralling towards the Sun in a matter of days.
I doubt he would have been able to observe anything moving at "6.67x10−9 metres per second".
If your doubts are based on that year 1798, think again. The torsion-balance is still in vogue and in SI units, for an obtained Earth’s density of 5.448 g cm−3, Cavendish's value gave 6.75x10−11 N m2/kg2 which differs by only 1% from today’s currently accepted value of 6.67259x10−11 N m2/kg2.
-
"I see, you never heard of Cavendish’s most famous torsion-bar experiment. "
I believe I'm fairly familiar with it.
"and he also established that when their masses are ignored the force of gravity in-between them becomes negative. "
Cavendish was a very shy man, but I suspect that if he had discovered some sort of anti gravity he would have mentioned it and I really think I would have heard.
What exactly do you mean?
"the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth could be calculated."
This was already known.
"Cavendish performed his experiment in the quest to find the Earth’s density."
The experiment is often referred to as "weighing the earth". He was trying to establish the mass, not the density. He may well have realised that he could only establish a mean density and, like the mean number of people's legs, it doesn't tell you a lot. Of course, knowing the earth's mass and size, you can calculate the density.
"If your doubts are based on that year 1798, think again. The torsion-balance is still in vogue and in SI units,"
The important thing about a torsion balance is that in use ( rather than during calibration) it doesn't move so you can hardly use it to say I'm wrong about Cavendish's ability to obserrve a velocity.
You also seem to have no idea what units you are working in.
The gravitational constant G is, as you say, in units of N m2/kg2
However you were quoting some obscure velocity in m/s
Your stuff about us spiralling into the sun is nonsense too.
-
Hello Bc,
This is what I mean. If the above equation is applied to sun-earth gravitational attraction, then the force of attraction in-between the two bodies would equal to:
with G 3.57x1028 N
without G 5.35x1038 N
The above results clearly explain what is the physical function of that G in the equation’s context. Since we are talking of an objective phenomenon, it should be perceived without any distortion caused by personal interpretations. The presence of G is lowering F by roughly ten notation quantities. That should be good for you, it should be good for me, and it should be good for all observers.
On a different note, the originator of the post doesn’t seem to be around and I am sorry I got involved in it.
-
That's just plain silly.
If we had gravity wrong by 10 orders of magnitude then our satellites wouldn't be where they should be.
-
Hello Bc,
I didn’t alter anything, I don’t think you altered anything, neither did Newton or Cavendish. That G was put there by mother nature, I suppose a very long time ago. I merely pointed out to you the difference or better still the end result with and without that big G. You may interpret the two results the way it suits you best. As for me I know that the 5.35 has come down to only 5.34 and half a dozen nines. You seem to say it is the same. I am saying it is almost the same. If that “almost” may or may not affect the gravitational balance is another story. I am now signing off for the Easter holidays. All the best to you and have a nice break yourself.
-
"I merely pointed out to you the difference or better still the end result with and without that big G."
Without big G there would be no orbits, no sun no earth and nothing else as we know it.
-
Is Gravity a resultant force from two opposing forces?
The way I see it, the force of gravity is the end result of an extremely slow accretion of matter particles ...
Dominus and "Expectant_Philosopher" may be referring to this (failed) type of theory to explain gravity ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd9%2FLesage1.jpg&hash=257b6c02aad83f1179d03cd00035e04c) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Le_Sage.27s_basic_concept)
... The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles ... impacting on all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impacting corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
-
Thanks Dominus and Bored Chemist for your replies and RD. Can we hypothesize the relationship between mass and distance for Gravity may be a symptom of the forces generated by the physical structures? The gravitational formulaic mass-distance relationship tested often, generates results backing the formula, is held as proof that the formula is complete. If two forces are at work in opposition, this force relationship could be substituted for what we know as big G, the gravitational constant. The relationship between mass and distance modifies the force relationship, but might be a symptom of variances in the structures generating the opposing forces. If mass1 generates F1-> and <-F1 and mass2 generates F2-> and <-F2, then G=(F1-> + F2->) - (<-F1 + <-F2). What then are Fn-> and <-Fn? - From my hypothetical point of view, I like RD's diagram of the forces at work.
-
I like RD's diagram of the forces at work.
Not my diagram: click on it to see the source.
NB: the hypothesis for gravity it illustrates, where mass shields other mass from ubiquitous particles which deliver force, is incorrect. If it were true everything would be rather hot ...
a major problem for every Le Sage model is the energy and heat issue. As Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy
-
I had never heard of Le Sage until you mentioned him. Thanks the history is very interesting.
-
It is interesting to note the idea of "compensation" in the movement of charge carriers in a material, where the net effect of the material is that of p or n depending on whether their of more of positive or negative charges moving in a material. Could this actually represent the functional parameters of the gravity-antigravity equation? Do the charge carriers themselves generate gravity and anti-gravity, gravity from the charge and anti-gravity from its opposing charge? Then to create an anti-gravity field we would need to align the charge to flow in the same direction through material as the opposing charge. This would align the gravitational field to either increased gravitational effects or reduced gravitation. Changing the gravitation would change the mass of the material. You could create small amounts of matter with extremely large gravitational effects.
-
If the charge carriers were responsible for creating gravity and anti-gravity, then a black hole would be a case where the opposing charge carriers were aligned in the same direction causing an intense gravitational field. The cause for the black hole could then be attributed to recoil from a supernova. After the initial blast of the supernova, recoil would tend to draw back massive amounts of matter and this might throw all the forces, that is the charge carriers into alignment. This process would tend to bounce back and forth, between big bang and black hole until it all leveled into an even distribution.