Is gravitation even real?

  • 178 Replies
  • 86491 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #1 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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #2 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 [nofollow]

Thanks

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #3 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.



Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #4 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #5 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #6 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 [nofollow]
 
“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 [nofollow] – “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 [nofollow]

"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

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #7 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.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2007 15:53:23 by BenV »

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #8 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

*

Offline Mr Andrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 206
  • God was primitive man's attempt at Physics.
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #9 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.
--Life is the greatest experiment that any person will ever conduct.  It should be treated with the same scientific method as any other experiment.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #10 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)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #11 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #12 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."
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #13 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

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #14 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

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #15 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #16 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
« Last Edit: 06/10/2007 17:29:31 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #17 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 [nofollow]

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 [nofollow]

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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #18 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #19 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #20 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?
« Last Edit: 07/10/2007 21:32:34 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #21 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 [nofollow]


Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2007 20:07:26 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #23 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

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #24 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2007 17:32:24 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #26 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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #27 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #28 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #29 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.




Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #30 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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #31 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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #32 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 [nofollow]

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 [nofollow]

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

fleep



*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #33 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

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #34 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #35 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!
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #36 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

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #37 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.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #38 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #39 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 [nofollow]   - (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 [nofollow]

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #40 on: 10/11/2007 17:13:49 »
What moved the balls?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #41 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

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #42 on: 11/11/2007 10:52:46 »
You're talking total unscientific rubbish fleep what you say is innacurate and does not work.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #43 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #44 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.     

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #45 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #46 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 [nofollow]

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 [nofollow]

“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

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2007 22:20:49 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #48 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 [nofollow]
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Fld.Alnd.Currents/ [nofollow]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current [nofollow]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology [nofollow]

No hard feelings, right?

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #49 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.