0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
1. Why does gravity often seem to have contradictory effects at different scales?
In my physics classes, when learning about Gravity, someone of course asked the obvious question of, "Why don't mountains have gravity?" or why we fail to observe gravitational fields forming around sufficiently large masses on Earth. The answer I received for this is that the gravity of the Earth is so extreme that it dwarfs the force of gravity of these smaller objects and renders them negligible.
Nevil Maskelyne’s 1774 experiment on the Scottish mountain Schiehallion set out to derive the mean density of the Earth, from astronomical observations of the deflection of the vertical and calculation of the mountain’s relative gravitational attraction.
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant (G).
If perpendicular forces cannot cancel each other out, why can't we observe the gravitational force of masses on Earth?
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University
If the effect of gravity is universal, why has the sun not pulled in the inner planets after at least two to three thousand years of humans observing them orbiting in a relatively constant state?
The problem with SJ's hypothesis is that he can't or won't state the density, viscosity, or elastic modulus of his celestial honey, and all attempts to measure its properties suggest it doesn't exist.
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.
Isaac Newton suggests the existence of an aether in The Third Book of Opticks (1718): "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"
Hey friends. I hope someone can help me here because I'm starting to feel like I may be going crazy, and I hope someone can set me straight.
My question comes in two parts:1. Why does gravity often seem to have contradictory effects at different scales?
The Earth is spinning at an extremely fast speed, while also moving through space at an extremely fast speed. This force called Gravity keeps me adhered to the Earth's surface, so it must be quite strong.
I can easily imagine how strong a force would have to be to keep a tiny object adhered to the surface of a basketball while it was both spinning and moving. So I can empirically deduce that the pull of gravity must be extremely strong.
However, this extremely strong force is also what keeps the moon orbiting the Earth, and the planets of our solar system orbiting the sun.
The moon orbits the Earth at a relatively constant distance, and the planets orbit the sun at a relatively constant distance. I understand that the distances vary slightly as the orbits are actually elliptical, but my point is that the planets are not pulled towards the sun, and the moon is not pulled towards the Earth.
Man has observed Mercury, for example, orbiting the sun for millenia, and it has apparently failed to be pulled into the sun by the force of the Sun's massive gravitational field, which paradoxically is strong enough to act on a planet such as Neptune, which is orbiting the sun at a distance that is orders of magnitude larger than Mercury's distance from the Sun.
2. The Earth is the only object that I can empirically verify as possessing Gravity. [/b]
This seems to be in opposition to the apparent fact that perpendicular forces are supposed to not effect each other in this universe.
Next, listen to Jeff's advice and ignore what stacyjones wrote regarding dark matter. It's all nonsense.
The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.
It's responses like this why Jeff and I said to ignore you. There is no aether. It doesn't exist. All attempts to find it failed, If it had the properties that it was defined to have then it would have been detected. Therefore if something exists and it can't be observed then it's not falsifiable and therefore does not belong to any physical theory. And even if it did then your belief about its properties are incorrect. That's all I'm going to say about these aether ideas. They're a waste of time.
The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the honey.
Quote from: stacyjones on 08/05/2016 11:38:46The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the honey.So why don't you just tell us its viscosity, density and elastic modulus? What else is there to measure?
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.