Is gravitation even real?

  • 178 Replies
  • 86331 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #50 on: 14/11/2007 23:58:08 »
I am quite familiar with plasma currents of this nature and the articles to which you refer.  Whilst these are interesting things they do not exert forces that are significant with the energy of motion of planets and satellites.  Also the directions and variations of thes forces on charged bodies throughout space bear no resemblence to the simple central force that is generated by a gravitating object.  So I fail to see how anyone could possibly consider such a process as offering any alternative to the currenly generally accepted theory of universal gravitiation.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #51 on: 16/11/2007 05:16:19 »
Fleep, "right or wrong", your efforts and erudition are most impressive, and genuinely appreciated. I apologize, I am not prepared to follow your thoughtful arguments. I respect your courtesy. May I  suggest that your interpretation, or anyones interpretations, of experiments that do not agree with the theory or principles of gravity do not necessarily disprove the existence of gravity. Must we not consider the preponderance of evidence for the existence of gravity. Even gravity does not operate in a vacuum. In other words, gravity, or its' effects can be influenced by other forces. It is the task of physics to discover the relationships between these seemingly disparate forces. It amazing to me how much we still have to learn about the dynamics of fluids. Specifically, is seem to me that "large body gravity", and gravitational effects, observed near the surface of the earth can be subject to entirely different effects, yet to be characterized. I suspect that these potential effects constitutes the confusion and "arguments" herein. This is my unqualified opinion.         
« Last Edit: 16/11/2007 05:25:50 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #52 on: 18/11/2007 18:06:57 »
Hi;

Answering to specific questions by Bored Chemist and Soul Surfer –

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

Bored Chemist- From Messg. 139126

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soul Surfer – Messg. 138941

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

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

Soul Surfer –  Messg. 139445

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

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

My Model  1 - to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
=================

The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D., up and down.
I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' at the same pressure for their strata level. There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels". (They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32 fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight and pressure above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing (columnar) atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.

The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.

This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.

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

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

Explanation - (hypothesis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An observation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your patience.

fleep

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #53 on: 20/11/2007 05:30:35 »
I respectfully ask that you read this very carefully, without prejudice, ...........,
I read this, considered the amount of work you have put into your posts, and thought I should give your ideas another chance. However, you then continued..
.... because if and when science absolutely proves that Gravitational Theory can be made into a Law,.....
This troubles me greatly. You seem to believe that theories become laws, that Laws are superior to theories. This troubles me because if you have such a basic misunderstanding of the mechanics of scientific methodology, what are the chances that you have correctly interpreted the mass of data you have considered? I wait your comments with interest.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #54 on: 20/11/2007 19:55:53 »
OK so I got another near random quote from wiki.
Let's see if I get a real answer this time.
Fleep, what moved the balls?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #55 on: 22/11/2007 00:27:02 »
Hi BC:

What made the balls move?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #56 on: 22/11/2007 15:37:29 »
Hi;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #57 on: 22/11/2007 20:33:34 »
"All right. Now how about you taking the time to answer even any one of the questions that I have ever posed to you, my artful-dodger friend?"
Count the questions you have asked on this page and see just how many I'm ignoring.
"why would I try to come up with or create any other fundamental force than “electromagnetic”, whose range is infinite? I would be daft to invent one of my own."
Because electromagnetism doesn't work. It's not universal and it only works for charged objects.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you can understand why I ignored it.


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

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

OK It's not neutrinos so what made the balls move?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #58 on: 23/11/2007 18:37:24 »
Hi BC;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fleep had said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To close -

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your help.

fleep

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #59 on: 23/11/2007 22:41:06 »
Fleep your suggestions just do not work and would not produce anything like the consistency of behavour and motion that the theory of universal gravitation does so Your ideas are completely nonsensical.
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 #60 on: 25/11/2007 20:19:07 »
Hi folks;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extracted from section called “Characteristics”-

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #61 on: 26/11/2007 02:38:03 »
Re:fleep. I obtained this information from the Britannica Encyclopedia Online, slightly reworded for this post. "Newton described in his "Opticks", the origin of the inverse square relationship. He examined the elements of circular motion, and applied his analysis to the moon and planets and noted that the radically directed force acting on a planet decreased with the square of its distance from the sun". Therefore, the inverse square relationship is a derivation, as are other fundamental laws and relationships in mechanical physics. I am not sure if this is the explanation you are seeking, since it is readily available, if researched. That is the "explanation", in terms of its origin, as well as the fact that this relationship, in the context of gravitational mechanics, can predict, with the knowledge of relevant masses, forces and distance. This ability to predict certain, relevant events, perhaps justify its validity. Scientific knowledge and understanding are provisional, therefore it is unreasonable to ask for a "complete and faultless" explanation/justification for the inverse square relationship. The inverse square relationship is not, beyond any question, a “coincidence”, defined as; "a combination of accidental circumstances that seem to have been planned or arranged". This word choice suggest a deep seated bias, and brings into question your motives and understanding. You have every right to promulgate and defend your theory/s, and they are much appreciated. But as a scientifically learned individual you must realize they are only theories. Moreover, your theory/s do not rise to the "complete and faultless" criteria, that you demand of others. Kahlil Gibran wrote in the "Prophet", "say not that I have found the truth, but rather I have found a truth". In other words, the ultimate truth alludes us. Therefore a degree of humility is necessary if we genuinely desire to learn and grow intellectually(and spiritually). Moreover, the mere fact that other forces exist, does not of necessity, invalidate gravity. If you are suggesting that gravity is more than mass attraction, that seems reasonable. To suggest that, "in some cases" other forces are at play, is consistent with scientific understanding.But why should such other influences eliminate and prove that mass attraction is invalid. Moreover, how reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events. After all, the understanding of gravity is bases upon and derived from certain celestial events. This is my unqualified opinion: who among you would claim as much? Thank you for allow me to participate.               
« Last Edit: 26/11/2007 02:51:11 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #62 on: 26/11/2007 19:26:04 »
Hi John;


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I keep saying that maybe they are.

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

I keep saying that maybe they are not.

How reliable are these other theories at predicting celestial events?

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your comments.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #63 on: 26/11/2007 20:51:40 »
I didn't respond because I'm still waiting for you to tell me what moved the balls.

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

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

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

I keep saying that science should be trying to find that out.  "
Science has been doing, in its way over the course of human history, quite a good job of predicting celestial events.
It's an odd definition of science that includes stonehenge but the predictions work just fine 4000 years on. Since gravity works that well, why should scince waste time looking for non existent forces?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline johnbrandy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 43
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #64 on: 27/11/2007 02:19:12 »
Friend fleep, you indicated that the explanation I offered of the inverse square relation, and the definition of “coincidence”, are not consistent with the information contained in your encyclopedia or dictionaries, respectively.Firstly, "my" explanation of the inverse square relationship is clearly a synopsis, not a complete and detailed account. Such overviews do not discount, or ignore the details that completely explain the process by which the inverse square relationship was derived. Secondly, the mere fact that you could not find an exact definition for "coincidence",consistent with the one I presented, does not mean that the definitions you researched are materially different in their meaning or word sense. It is highly probable that these different definitions are close enough for present purposes. As well, you do not offer a different explanation or definition, which is absolutely necessary if you intend to question or refute the value, or significance of the information I presented.Therein, you are not speaking to the issue.If, as you directly imply, that my explanation and definition are inadequate, please provide details  as to their inappropriateness and provide correctives.In other words, please point out specifically where and how "my" explanation and definition fail.In addition, you have not logically demonstrated why the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. It is a contradiction, to agree, as you do, that the inverse square relationship is derived from observation of physical events, and at the same time suggest that the inverse square relationship is a coincidence. Further, I would suggest that the current, online version of the Britannic is more accurate than all, except the most current print version.Thank You for allowing me to participate.         
« Last Edit: 28/11/2007 00:57:40 by johnbrandy »

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #65 on: 01/12/2007 14:32:19 »
Hi guys:

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

Pascal & Newton’s 3rd

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

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

Purpose - to track and explain the falling of a mass through Earth’s atmosphere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)
The day is still. The air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles) is not moving.
The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch block to be dropped is 1 square inch.
The object weighs 1 Lb., and is one cubic inch in volume.
Look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D., up and down.
I call it a "(soft) closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' at the same pressure for their strata level.
There is nothing special or distinct about the "column” in which our sample will drop.
They are all close enough together that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels".
(They are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning the model’s concept.)
Our 1 Lb. object will drop from the "Karman Line"/edge of space. (See Wikipedia)
All strata (gas) layers extend "flatly" identically at all altitudes in all directions.
Our sample object starts from the Karman Line & falls at 32 fps, then 32 fps/sec. etc.
Its 1 Lb. weight falls and displaces one cubic inch of air at a time.
The cube’s passing "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls", displacing air.
Each succeeding cubic inch of fall recalls its air volume to re-fill the void above it.
The cube passes, so the original atmospheric weight and pressure above it is restored.
All bypassed cubic inches return to normal as the cube drops.
The "ripple action" continues all the way (of the drop) down to sea level.
The 1 Lb. cube is leaving an increasing (columnar) atmospheric burden behind as it falls.
At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water.
The atmosphere above it, in the column, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.
Up until the splash, the total weight in that column was 15.7 Lbs. (with the cube.)
After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the cube's 1 Lb. weight.

The overhead air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air continuously returned to its temporarily "borrowed" space. The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weights are simply being “accommodated”.

This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”.

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

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

Pascal’s Law says that “Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them”.

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

 Model  2 – The Planet Earth on a still day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

Pertinent comments welcome.

Thanks

fleep



*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #66 on: 02/12/2007 13:15:52 »
Does this "(We're passing by the ongoing pointless rhetorics:)" mean that you can't answer a simple question?

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

Oh, btw we dismissed this idea "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. " earlier because without a force (gravity as it happens) there's no way for the object to know which way is down. Half the time things would fall up or sideways.
Since I already pointed that out in an earlier post I wonder why you are rehashing it. Did you forget that it was rubish?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #67 on: 02/12/2007 15:35:37 »
Hi BC;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #68 on: 02/12/2007 18:10:34 »
Science has a perfectly good answer to the question. The answer is gravity.
If you wish to dispute the reallity of gravity you need to come up with an equally plausible explanation. It's perfectly logical for me to ask you what it is.

"Since when does any object have to "know" which way is down?"
Since you said
"This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”. "
Otherwise how could it know which way to fall? Of course, universal gravitation answers this perfectly.
Pointing out this failure on your part to provide a reasonable alternative to the well established fact of gravity or pointing out that three's a problem with your idea about things naturally falling down without having something to define which way is "down" is perfectly pertinant to the matter in hand.



"You say that "half the time, things would fall up or sideways". You're kidding me, right?"
 Yes and no. I'm pointing out that, without gravity to tell them which way to fall things might fall sideways. This is absurd. It is also a drict consequence of the non existance of gravity that you are putting forward.
I'm glad that you recognise it is daft; why don't you recognise it as a feature of a universe without gravity?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #69 on: 02/12/2007 21:37:47 »
Hi;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, these are:

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

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

Address those, and we can get down to work.


Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #70 on: 03/12/2007 20:55:45 »
"Science doesn't have an "answer". It has a shaky theory called "universal gravitation""

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


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

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

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

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

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


Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #71 on: 04/12/2007 17:22:18 »
Hi BC;

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

 That simply isn't true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now. How about the questions posed by Model 2?

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #72 on: 05/12/2007 10:54:25 »
The theory of universal gravitation has produced precise results on the motion of planetary bodies and is totally satisfactory for everyone in the universe except fleep.  I am not proposing to enter into fatuous arguments about this.

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

Numerous others have tried to produce some sort of residual electromagnetic effect like the Van Der walls forces that hold most atoms together but none have been successful.  Any such theory must include the same effects as relativity which has been adequately proved.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2007 15:03:33 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #73 on: 05/12/2007 11:05:03 »
As has been pointed out before, theory in a scientific sense does mean that.
From Wiki.
Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

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

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

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

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #74 on: 09/12/2007 18:51:48 »
Hi;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #75 on: 09/12/2007 20:39:36 »
The constant, comonly denoted by the letter G, is about 6 X 10^-11

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

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

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #76 on: 09/12/2007 22:09:53 »
Hi BC;

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

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

I'm all done here, I guess.

fleep




*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #77 on: 10/12/2007 09:30:42 »
That last post about isotropy was total rubbish and shows clearly that you do not understand the meaning of the word Fleep 

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

The only radiation that we see that appears to be almost (but not quite ) isotropic is the cosmic microwave background.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #78 on: 10/12/2007 17:47:55 »
You said it didn't exist, but it makes perfectly good sense if you understand the physics.
Coulomb obviously got credit for Coulomb's law; same with Newton.
Electricity can only run the local bit's of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.
Gravity follows an equation of the same form as electrostatic attraction.
None of this is new.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #79 on: 11/12/2007 17:21:41 »
BC said: “Electricity can only run the local bits of the universe because, except for macroscopically charged objects, electricity is a short range force.”   (No. Electricity is an energy form, not a “force”.)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary:

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

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

Thanks anyway, if you bothered to read this far.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #80 on: 11/12/2007 20:19:27 »
The references are not garbage as such; most of what wiki has to say is perfectly correct. It's just that they don't actually have any bearing on the matter. That one about the Northern lights is a case in point; I know what they are; I know they are real; I know people who have seen them. What could they possibly have to do with whether or not two lumps of stuff in a lab atract one-another?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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 #81 on: 13/12/2007 23:05:30 »
The fact that electromagnetic forces exist and have relatively small effects in the solar system and beyond is not in dispute.  You wish to suggest that these effects take the place of the normally accepted gravitational, linear and angular momentum based forces  that have been shown to accurately describe the operation of the universe for hundreds of years.  A few small and simple calculations will show that this is rediculous go away and do the calculations.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #82 on: 15/12/2007 14:09:57 »
Hi;

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

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

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

fleep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does all the system come to rotary movement ?

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


The secret of 'God' and 'Existence' hide
 in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #83 on: 15/12/2007 18:40:31 »
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

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

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

Classical physics says the temperature of a vacuum is undefined- how can you talk about the mean energy of the particles whaen there aren't any?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #84 on: 16/12/2007 07:35:51 »
"T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
its temperature will decrease.
And, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years it will reach T=0K."

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

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

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


The secret of 'God' and 'Existence' hide
 in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #85 on: 16/12/2007 21:32:44 »
Hi folks;

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

Excellent verification of some of the spatial happenings of electricity found in my hypotheses can be read at:  http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/lightning/
(Note that the source is from the U.K.)

===============================================================================================================
Now.  You guys keep trying to re-paint the room while the house is burning.

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

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

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

 Electromagnetic and gravitational fields

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

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

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

Theory                        Interaction       Mediator   Relative Magnitude    Behaviour   Range

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

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

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

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #86 on: 16/12/2007 22:26:24 »
"The Earth and the Sun are charged objects. They are not “uncharged” as you keep insisting"

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #87 on: 18/12/2007 18:14:02 »

And for what it's worth Socratus doesn't seem to understand that 0.000001K is not the same as 0K ("Hawking showed that a " black hole" has a temperature within
a few millioms of a degree above absolute zero : T = 0K.").
That makes the rest of his script rather pointless.
It would be better in another thread (in my view, preferably on another site)
=========================
What geometrical and physical parameters can
 particles have in a " Hawking,s space "
 or in the space T=2,7K ?
The secret of 'God' and 'Existence' hide
 in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #88 on: 19/12/2007 18:18:57 »
I can't find any meaningful description of what "Hawking's space" is. Did you make it up?
Anyway, this is still in the wrong thread.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #89 on: 20/12/2007 18:17:52 »
Hi:

Back in my messg 146035, I said;

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

A ‘Petawatt’ = (10 15 watt)

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #90 on: 21/12/2007 17:21:41 »
That enormous amount of energy is indeed carried from the sun to the earth and I never said it wasn't.
Since it is carried as radiation rather than ring currents the force it carries is small. (and for the record, it pushes the earth away from the sun so it cannot possibly contribute to the force that holds the earth in orbit).
The forces due to ring currents are too small to explain the tides or the orbit of the earth.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: 21/12/2007 19:44:00 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #91 on: 21/12/2007 19:00:24 »
Hi BC;

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

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

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

"Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them".

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

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

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

...and general greetings from Canada.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #92 on: 21/12/2007 20:05:57 »
I'm conceding a rather small point- the radiation pressure from the sun  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
exerts a force of about 30 E6 Newtons on the earth. The force requred to keep it in orbit is about 3.5E22 Newtons or about 1000000000000000 times bigger.
That's why I say that radiation pressure is too small to matter.
The effect of the solar wind is about 5000 times smaller still.
Why do you keep bringing up these tiny effects when what we are looking for is the 3.5E22 Newtons that keeps the planet in orbit?
And I'm not evading your question; it just doesn't make sense.
"Please clearly explain to me how even a portion of the enormous  energy that is leaving the sun and  being conveyed to the Earth through the interstellar medium by the solar winds and/or the ring currents, "....
Well, since the energy is no more carried by the ring currents than it is by horses and carts I can't see what answer I could give other than saying it's carried by radiation.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2007 20:12:15 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #93 on: 04/01/2008 02:25:51 »
Happy New Year folks.

Let's try something different.

Science and Earth's Weather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

fleep



*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #94 on: 04/01/2008 09:30:11 »
The gravity is the reason that hot air rises ie it is less dense than its surrounding cold air.  Without gravity this just would not happen and has been demonstrated using flames in orbiting spaceships or microgravity aircraft flights.  This is just as good an argument against your interminally presented rubbish about gravity being an electromagnetic process.


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

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12may_1.htm
« Last Edit: 04/01/2008 09:37:45 by Soul Surfer »
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #95 on: 04/01/2008 12:14:52 »
Once again I find myself wondering, how can you define "rise" (as in hot air rises) unless there's an "up" and a "down", and what, apart from gravity pulling things down, can make "up" and "down" different?

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

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

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #96 on: 04/01/2008 12:38:16 »
Wow! Sometimes you old gravity diehards just run out of imagination. What's with showing me pictures of newly discovered ways of viewing flames in space and telling me it's about "gravity"? So what if that's how it was reported by an esteemed space agency that has not yet come to terms with how spatial events and effects might be better explained since Negative Pressure was discovered in 2005?

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

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

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

Thanks

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #97 on: 04/01/2008 16:16:30 »
Fleep, you seem to have missed the problem with defining "up and "down" without gravity and also this bit "BTW, since the maths shows it cannot possibly be any electromagnetic effect that keeps the earth in orbit round the sun and it clearly can't be any of the short range forces like the nuclear ones, perhaps you would like to say what holds the earth in orbit if you don't think it's gravity?"
Could you provide us with an answer rather than a rant please?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
    • View Profile
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #98 on: 04/01/2008 21:01:12 »
Hi again;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks
fleep

*

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is gravitation even real?
« Reply #99 on: 05/01/2008 00:16:16 »
You are "Barking mad" fleep.  If you fly an aircraft from a high gravity turn to a zero gravity parabola you can easily film a flame changing from normal to zero g. your physics is completely wrong and I fail to see why you persist with such a stupid idea.  The only reason that I can think is that you enjoy looking a fool and getting angry responses like this!
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!