0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
According to gravitational law, very massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.By using the formula G*m1*m2/d˛ Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approxand between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.
...when Newton saw an apple falling from the tree, he made a final decesion to make a theory without observing further things and put the whole science in a dark hole.
"In Cavendish experiment we do not know the following parameters1) Air Pressure2) Direction of air3) Masses and the densities of M and m4) Distance between M and m5) Height of the rope/string6) Nature of the string7) Polarity of M and m Material (iron,steel,plastic wood etc) of M and m9) Is it shows the same results for different materials as the gravity is constant for all the objects?10) Is this experiment gives the same results all the time in all conditions?"In the real world, rather than one where gravity doesn't exist and where this whole thread makes sense, we do know most of those things.Cavendish was a good experimenter and will have logged most of them like the masses and distances.There are some like #10 which no single experiment can show, but we have been using spring balances (and the more modern equivalents) for a long time. We know by direct experiment that gravity hasn't changed much since Cavendish's day.
We lso have historical records of eclipses and such that show that the moon's orbit hasn't changed much for centuries and we know from things like Stonehenge that the orbit of the earth round the Sun hasn't changed much in several thousand years.That's not proof that it will never change, but its perfectly good evidence that it's stable.You, on the other hand, have offered precisely no evidence to support your strange notions.Incidentally I suspect that, if God existed, He would prefer to be left out of this.We are more likely to be convinced by evidence and sound maths than by trying to appeal to God as a witness (Unless, of course, He actually turns up and tells us you are right).
I am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia.
QuoteI am still confused on one side this force of gravity is so strong that is holding the whole universe and on the other hand it appear so weak in Cavendish experiment as described in Wikipedia. Think a bit harder about the relative sizes (and crucially masses) of the objects you're considering. It seems to me that your inability to grasp how gravity works may stem from a failure to comprehend just how massive planets and stars are relative to anything used in a laboratory experiment.I would seriously suggest that if you want to understand this you sit down, probably with something like an A-level mechanics text book, and work through the maths of Newtonian gravity, and calculate for yourself the forces it predicts between sun and earth, earth and moon, two 1 kg lead balls, etc., and also circular orbits and centripetal force. Then come back in a few weeks, if you're still puzzled, and ask some more questions.
Ah. I see. That's your problem... it's not actually a problem at all.What you're missing about the earth and the moon is that the moon can be considered as being in orbit about the sun (the moon is, after all, going around the sun once per year in much the same way as the earth is), but because the earth and the moon are close together, the moon's trajectory around the sun is disturbed by its trajectory around the earth. The earth's trajectory is also disturbed by the moon, but its a smaller wobble because the earth's mass is so much more than the moon's.
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.[/quotThen it is clear, the force is dependent of densityAm i right?
I am still waiting for your answer on other point that I have mentioned against gravity in my theory
According to Gravitational Law, the force is inversely proportional to the distance. In case of Sun, Moon and Earth, the distance between Earth, Moon and Sun is constant but it varies in case of Sun and Moon.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/11/2010 12:56:11"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.Then it is clear, the force is dependent of densityAm i right?
"What would be the results if we use plastic balls of same density instead of lead balls? Results should be the same if the gravity exists."No plastic is as dense as lead so that's impossible.
Then it is clear, the force is dependent on density
Then it is clear, the force is independent of density
Go away and do your homework, make an effort to actually understand the current theory, and then maybe (if you still persist in "disagreeing with" gravity, which I doubt) you'll have something interesting to contribute.