Gravity Problem Solved

  • 163 Replies
  • 48644 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #50 on: 09/09/2008 17:30:20 »
graham.d, I believe that matter was created as spinning 'energy' from a point source until the big bang event occurred. I believe that this spinnning energy was only emitting gravity perpendicular to it's main axis of rotation. A bit like a spinning pencil that doesn't emit gravity out of either end of it's main axis. I don't expect you to agree of course.

AL  [8)]

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #51 on: 09/09/2008 19:09:42 »
It seems that you are not aware that photons, which are massless, carry momentum.

Do you also not understand that, since it predicts the highest tides in the wrong places and a non-spinning moon, your theor is totally wrong?
Newton might not have taken account of relativity, but you are not taking account of reality. That's not science- it's trolling.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #52 on: 09/09/2008 20:45:29 »
Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.

I also have a solution for the wave/particle duality which you'll be delighted to know I haven't posted as a new thread yet.

AL  [8)]

*

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #53 on: 10/09/2008 13:28:27 »
Dear common_sense_seeker,

Please understand that for your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to supply more than a series of buzzwords linked together. For any new theory proposed (not just by you), the ideas must be explained clearly and quantitatively, and they must also be consistent with observational results. Also please bear in mind that any post without these kind of testable predictions which start out saying "everyone else is wrong and I have come up with the theory of everything" is likely to be treated with scepticism at best and ridicule at worst. The place I work gets several letters a month detailing new universal theories, and almost all of them follow the same pattern we've seen in this thread. Most of them do get credit for attempting the maths, but have made a flawed assumption or two close to the start. New ideas are ALWAYS welcome, but they must be based in the scientific method!

Trying to pick holes in an established theory does not automatically make your alternative right, especially when you specifically say you are refusing to do the relevant maths. Maybe you are concerned that if you do, your theory will not agree with observations? If you want to pursue this, either post fully testable (or at least consistent) predictions of your new theory or, if you are concerned about your work being stolen, I would suggest writing it up as a paper and sending it to a journal for peer-review (such as MNRAS). I look forward to reading it!

Richard

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #54 on: 10/09/2008 14:07:27 »
Dear Richard, thanks for a sensible comment. I intend to pursue a computer simulation model route using geometry rather than mathematical formulae. Something akin to the Durham University model, which I think looks like the most unelegant answer to creation I've ever seen. In reality, the start of it all has got to be very simple. Even Einstein says that an initial simple mental picture is the key to success.

AL  [8)]

*

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #55 on: 10/09/2008 14:14:23 »
...in which case, you are using maths, just through numerical methods. Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!

Richard

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #56 on: 10/09/2008 14:33:03 »
Obviously using some maths. I don't believe that supporters of the Standard Model have a simple mental picture of creation. Simplicity is the key. I know it's all words until I pull something professional out the bag. I have a wonderful visual solution for the cosmological expansion. Epiphany-inducing. You're right, I'm worried someone's going to pinch my ideas. I hoping some other hapless fool clicks with my thinking.

Chance in a billion so far I think.

AL  [;D]

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #57 on: 10/09/2008 14:42:40 »
Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!

Richard

I confess that my knowledge of the Durham University work came solely from the TV. It was the standard model cobbled together to produce graphics which resembled the pictures from Hubble. I wasn't impressed and neither was Brian Cox if I remember correctly.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #58 on: 10/09/2008 19:04:13 »
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #59 on: 11/09/2008 00:36:55 »
I would suggest a good literature search to find out if anything has been done previously in the area you want to explore. If I'm allowed to post links to external sites, here are a couple:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/preprint_service.html
You can search there for any published or preprinted paper in any area of physics/astronomy, so there should be something there relevant for you. At least it should give you some ideas of what has already been covered.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #60 on: 11/09/2008 10:17:42 »
Thanks Richard, unfortunately I didn't have access to the sites.

AL

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #61 on: 11/09/2008 10:24:33 »
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.

Bored chemist, it's starting to get infectious. Another circumstantial piece of evidence to support my claims is that the highest transport of nutrients from the seafloor towards the surface are also found on the west coasts. An example of this is off the west coast of South America. It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon.

*

Offline rich42

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 20
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #62 on: 11/09/2008 11:14:11 »
Then try:
http://arxiv.org/

I think this is open to all, the previous preprint link should be too. For the papers published in journals I think you would need a subscription to that journal.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #63 on: 11/09/2008 19:41:15 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.
This theory also has the advantage of fitting the rest of the data and not predicting a stationary moon or the highest tides in the wrong places. For those who like that sort of thing (ie most scientists) the usual theory has the helpful , if conventional, benefit of a basis in sound mathematics applied to measurable quantities.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Gabe2k2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 32
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #64 on: 11/09/2008 19:48:57 »
OK do the moons gravitational effects effect the thickness of the atmosphere do we have to account for lunar gravity when modeling a weather system ! or when the tide is high is the atmosphere also thicker ! Free flowing water yeah obvious to me but even more free flowing gasses !

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #65 on: 12/09/2008 11:30:12 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.


Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #66 on: 13/09/2008 00:13:06 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of gravitational force being proportional to
m1m2/d2. The sum of the elements of all the masses of the Moon and Earth produce the mutual orbit of the two bodies, a wobble in the Earth's motion and the tidal bulges are (at least, qualitatively) predicted. You can do simple sums to show the way the effective gravity varies at different points around the Earth's surface due to the Moon's presence. This accounts for two bulges- one on the Moon side and one on the other side.
 
If you take a simplified Earth Moon system with a thin layer of water around a solid sphere where there is some 'damping' involved, it predicts a pair of bulges which sweep around the Earth, following the Moon. The depth of the bulges and the actual lag will depend upon actual details of the system. The 'real' system is too complicated to model accurately because the Oceans resonate and produce extra effects of phase shifts and standing waves. And, of course, the Sun's effect is very significant, too.
 However, you don't need to involve the Earth's crust flexing in order to explain how the tides happen.
Why look for a a totally unverifiable explanation when a simple one does the job?

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #67 on: 13/09/2008 11:40:47 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of


You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.

I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #68 on: 13/09/2008 19:47:35 »
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."

Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.


Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.

You would be impressed if I knew the conventional explanation?
It's in the WIKI article that someone posted in this thread.
It's interesting to note that mty abillity to read impresses you.

As for "I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation." you aare obviously talking nonsense as this flexing is very small. You cannot call it a logical explanation because it doesn't make sense.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #69 on: 14/09/2008 01:03:28 »
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of


You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.

I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.
This seems a complete red herring; do we now claim that wind is the main cause of tides as well as the lithosphere moving up and down? What has David Attenborough got to do with Physics? I thought he was a naturalist.
btw, I wonder whether you have ever done any sums to justify this new model of yours. Oh and, yes - I have done sums and so have many other people, in connection with the accepted model. The results tie in with experience - would  / do yours? How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for  5m of sea movement or more.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #70 on: 16/09/2008 10:13:07 »
 
Quote
How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for  5m of sea movement or more.

That's a good question for once. The exact data is difficult to get hold off of course, but I work on a rough estimate of around 0.2m rise in the seabed. It is the also the lateral movement of the seabed bulge which has an 'unlimited' amount of momentum when compared to that of the ocean. I'm using logical arguments to highlight my theory, rather than woolly mathematics. It's not that I can't do maths, I scored 98% in my first year at university and was awarded joint 'best student' for my discipline out of around 300+.

What are your academic achievements?
« Last Edit: 16/09/2008 10:30:25 by BenV »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #71 on: 16/09/2008 10:35:16 »
Now now.  Sophie's academic achievements are not relevant to this discussion.  What's important is that you have been asked a question, and instead of answering it you say you work on a "rough estimate", then claim you use logic instead of "wooly mathematics". If your logic is true, it will hold up against the maths. In fact, if your logic is true it will predict the maths.  People here have asked you to mathematically prove your logic, yet you refuse.

And how can something have unlimited momentum?

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #72 on: 16/09/2008 11:04:52 »
And how can something have unlimited momentum?

The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense. It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.
« Last Edit: 16/09/2008 11:06:52 by common_sense_seeker »

*

Offline Rock A. Fellow

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #73 on: 16/09/2008 11:49:05 »
Hello all
 With respect to common sense seeke,I would like to encourage any new theory that uses right brain thinking. I believe it is possible to use the subconscious along with our conscious mind to see pictures of how things work.
 Using simplicity,as I believe c_s_s is asking us to do, I would like to know what your thoughts would be on this.

  If we heat the center of a dense ball, we would get a reaction. One reaction is well known as expansion. If the ball was large(like the earth)  expansion and contraction (heat/cool/expand/contract) would cause what ever covers the surface (water) to create waves?

 This is simple yes and is shown in natural physics everyday.
 
Math is a nice tool that helps enplane what we see nature doing.
 Good discussion thanks

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #74 on: 16/09/2008 12:24:32 »
And how can something have unlimited momentum?

The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense.

Are you at all surprised to find that the people here, on this science forum, are like your scientific friends?  The problem is that you are proposing a way to think about something, then claiming that it's true.  I'm sure it's a nice logical way to think of it, but to prove it you will need some evidence.  You will need to show how your idea predicts what happens, and the only way to do this convincingly is with the maths.

I can comprehend all sorts of things, but this does not make them true.  In order to prove them scientifically, I will have to use scientific proof.

Quote
It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.

But it's not based at all on calculations - you have so far refused to give them.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #75 on: 16/09/2008 13:35:53 »
Quote
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #76 on: 16/09/2008 13:43:29 »
The effect on the right brain would only work if we were all facing the same way!
c-s-s would, presumably insist on the Maths used to calculate his grocery or restaurant bill was correct and would probably not accept a random, "common sense" figure from the shopkeeper's or waiter's imagination.
If we are to disregard Maths then we might as well all go home and give up any idea of doing Science.
I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #77 on: 16/09/2008 13:51:31 »
Quote
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.

I told you they weren't relevant!

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #78 on: 16/09/2008 14:06:44 »

I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.


My argument is simply an answer to Brian Cox's TV programme "What's wrong with gravity", shown sometime earlier this year. He's the one who designed the LHC at CERN.

Incidentally the maths isn't worth doing at high school standard, since fluid dynamics are involved, which neither of us could do.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #79 on: 16/09/2008 14:48:07 »
Now you can't say the size of my willy isn't relevant!!

I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #80 on: 16/09/2008 16:09:04 »

I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.

Did you see his TV programme concerning the problem with gravity? Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #81 on: 16/09/2008 17:24:32 »
Sophie, sophie, sophie. How silly of me not to realise that you're a physics supply teacher. I genuinely have a lot of respect for you, I know how confident you have to be to face a class of modern day teenagers. I certainly couldn't do it. But do you have the same attitude and responses to children who challenge the long held orthodoxy of physics?

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #82 on: 16/09/2008 21:34:15 »
Of course Newton's Laws of Gravity are limited in their scope. That does not make them wrong. When you ask someone the time and they say "Quarter past two" you would not tell them they were 'wrong' if you then looked at your Rubidium Activated Caesium clock and you saw it was 14:14.33.3674663552.
You might be surprised, however, if, some time later, they told you it was Two o'clock.
Newton's laws describe the situation extremely well ( they don't contradict themselves either) but they don't EXPLAIN anything; they don't even pretend to. They are correct in sign and very accurate in magnitude in their prediction. Very few situations cannot be dealt with by using Newton. He fails under extreme conditions - high speeds, big masses, big and small distances. There have been other, 'better' models, since. Unlike your proposed ideas, however, these more advanced models 'tend to' Newton's Laws under normal conditions. They don't need to contradict the laws, they just modify them.
The nice thing about teaching kids is that, when you give them enough good reason to believe what you tell them - conventional evidence coupled with (usually) some simple maths - they accept it and, presumably, wait until they know more and can understand better - possibly to prove me wrong. They may have many faults but they seem recognise reasonable Science when they see it I never have to say "because I say so". I think they must realise that you have to be VERY GOOD and VERY RIGHT to challenge conventional wisdom. I often wonder where people get the arrogance to oppose the conventions of Science with so little substance to their new theories.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #83 on: 16/09/2008 21:39:50 »
"Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?!"
Yes, I understand that. There's a couple of problems. We don't know how to combine quantumn mechanics and gravity. We also suspect there might be a small correction to Einstein's work - the pioneer probe isn't quite where we expect it to be. The difference is about a ten-thousandth of a thousandth of a thousandth of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
That's a tiny difference- small enough that we are not sure it is real.

We know that our understanding of gravity is good enough to fly spacecraft to the moon. It gives us things like the GPS system.
Just for a start, the GPS is good enough to show that the earth's surface simply does not move as much as you think.
Sorry- it's an ugly fact destroying a dumb "theory".

The tides are perfectly well explained by our theory of gravity.
You seem to be trying to make up some imaginary problem in order to justify a "theory".
there might be some tiny little problem and there's certainly a need for a better theory of quantumn gravity.
If you were doing anything like that you would be making a contribution here.
You are not.
You are banging on about nonsense.
Having qualifications dosn't make your theory right; getting the right answers does.
You have failed in any way to do this.
You got the tides' maxima wrong. You got the moon's spin wrong. You got the tidal range of the bedrock wrong.

Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #84 on: 16/09/2008 21:56:03 »
No, BC, don't hold back - tell 'im straight!

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #85 on: 17/09/2008 12:59:34 »

Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?



Dear BC and Sophie, I hear you. I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics. A recent BBC4 TV programme had Brian Cox show that he thought there was only a 0.01% chance of not finding the Higgs particle. But another top scientist gave a 60% chance of not finding it. So it ISN'T a foregone conclusion. I'm not anti-science in the least. Hopefully the result will come in the next few months, or maybe it will take a lot longer than that? I don't know.  

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #86 on: 17/09/2008 19:30:47 »
"I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics."
No, it will take more than that.

The LHC might show there's something wrong with our current models of the universe; but it won't show that your model is right unless
1 it moves the high tides,
2 it stops the moon spinning and
3 it makes the land bounce up and down

When those all happen come back and tell us you were right.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #87 on: 17/09/2008 19:36:20 »

No, it will take more than that.




You're right on that score. I think Brian Cox is probably going to be the person to see the light. But that's just my opinion of course.

How long do you think it will take for Brian Cox to declare that the Higgs particle has been found?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #88 on: 18/09/2008 07:05:55 »
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #89 on: 18/09/2008 09:50:16 »
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.

How drole.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #90 on: 18/09/2008 14:16:46 »
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.

Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #91 on: 18/09/2008 19:44:48 »
" Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea."
Bollocks!
If I say I have a "theory" that says you can extract unlimited energy from old crisp packets it doesn't mean it's worth investigating; it means I'm a loony.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #92 on: 18/09/2008 22:26:40 »
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.


Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
Do you actually 'understand' what this new core-centred theory means?
Does gravity only work between certain parts of objects? Which bits?
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #93 on: 19/09/2008 10:04:21 »
It means that gravity has a directional component. I have deduced that the fundamental particle doesn't emit gravity particles in all directions.

Core-centered theory is the only way to explain the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths found frozen in standing positions within the permafrost. They are even located within the arctic circle, in near perfect condition with their meat being good enough to eat. I propose a giant comet near-miss pulled on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago. Earthquakes liquified the ground and engulfed the mammoths. The entire landmass then rose by over 6km into the freezing air temperatures above.

Professor Hapgood has analysed the data in detail. I even propose that Siberia was lush with vegetation during the summer at least, necessary to support a population of mammoths in the first place. I further propose that the pull on the inner core created convection currents within the mantle which reduced the amount of heat reaching the crust, hence the start of an ice age.

Not only is it a new theory of gravity but also a new theory of the ice ages.
« Last Edit: 19/09/2008 10:07:42 by common_sense_seeker »

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #94 on: 19/09/2008 11:41:20 »
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.

I ask again; do you  (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!

The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #95 on: 19/09/2008 13:38:48 »
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.

I ask again; do you  (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!

The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.


You're ignoring the scientific data concerning the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths yourself! A core-centered theory is the only viable option.

My theory of gravity has cause and effect just the same as the standard theory. I'm proposing that the size of the uber-condensed core of is proportional to the planetesimal's total size. Therfore the maths works out pretty much the same on planetary scales.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #96 on: 20/09/2008 00:07:41 »
I suppose it would be too much to ask for some kind of formula - which could be applied to simple situations and return the correct answer?
Science is not based on arm waving.

*

Offline common_sense_seeker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 213
    • View Profile
    • Believers In Gravity Shielding (BiGS)
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #97 on: 20/09/2008 09:55:41 »
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?


If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Does that sound fair enough?

BTW Another forum discussion about the mammoth analysis is rife.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #98 on: 20/09/2008 19:33:18 »
"If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.

Does that sound fair enough?"
OK,
If you look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
it shows you how to calculate the force acting on the two balls.
It also lets you calculate the forvce between the eath and the moon.
The answer explains planetary motion perfectly.
Since it works just fine, but your ideas predict that it wouldn't work, your ideas must be wrong.
Please stop wittering on about them.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity Problem Solved
« Reply #99 on: 22/09/2008 00:18:01 »
Quote
If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.
Don't just promise it - show us it- give us some actual NUMBERS! Or bow out gracefully.
ps YOU can get the data - School Physics tells you what it will be and the experiments verify it.
« Last Edit: 22/09/2008 00:23:13 by sophiecentaur »