0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space. Every one of the “spheres”, from the troposphere on up, get lighter, and they follow upward successively in lightness and thin-ness, all the way up to where the atmosphere “ends”.
Pascal’s law is about pressures that exceed fluid and/or atmospheric pressure
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space.
Come on, Batroost. Your example is a red herring, and I suspect that you know it. Are you testing me?
You’re still thinking that I’m saying that air “pushes” things down?
We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc.
In the "earth's atmosphere" part of my theory, everyone seems to keep demanding I must match and explain its workings at every global location’s elevation, weather condition, price of coffee, local hair style, etc. It looks like I’ll be dead long before we get down to the serious consideration that there is a larger fundamental theory here, that everyone is bypassing in an effort to defend traditional scientific “dogma”. If I’m wrong, I will learn that I’m wrong, (and I will learn from that) eventually, but I’m humbly asking anyone to help me finalize this
The pressure thing across doors can be a real issue even in a much less effectively sealed building. I work in a chemistry lab, with 22 fume hood extractors running full time and lowering the pressure in the lab. We have active pumps moving air back into the lab, but when these shut down for maintenance several things happen:- All the flow alarms go off... the pressure indoors is too low for the extrctors to work against effectively.- Any open windows produce a howling draft, taking anything not nailed down off the worksurface and onto the floor.- Last time it happened I and the other girls couldn't get the door open against the pressure in the corridor (in my defence my arm was in plaster at the time) and we had to get one of the guys to push it really hard and then hold it until we were ready to let it slam.No real relevance to topic, but it was quite striking at the time.
Quote from: Batroost on 10/05/2007 19:01:24Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached. Hi Batroost;I think I've said it before, but this time, I think I can best explain this if the air is "still".Even the jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)The day is still, and 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 falling object is 1 square inch. It weighs 1 Lb.Now look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D.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' for their strata level. This is to say that 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". (I realize they are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning my concept.)Our 1 Lb. object drops from the "Karman Line"/edge of space.(see Wiki)All strata (gas) layers extend flatly identically at their own altitudes in all directions.Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.Its 1 Lb. weight falls upon and displaces one cubic inch at a time, which "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls".As each succeeding soft cubic inch bends, its air content is bypassed and fills the void created behind the falling object.As the object passes, the original atmospheric weight from there up is restored to what it was in its column.All bypassed cubic inches return to normal, but the "ripple action" continues all the way down to sea level.All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.The air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air returned to its continuously/temporarily "borrowed" space.Now, here's where I always seem to run into all the objections. Could I ask how you would describe what just happened?Well, Sir; I'm asking what you and others think, assuming you will agree to think in terms of the example I expressed, by remembering that science "created" a Datum area and weight to satisfy a globally comparative need for a baseline. I am simply rising up from that "any one spot" in a vertical column of the appropriate size, and creating its "Datum column", to be used for comparison(s).What do you think?Thanks Batroost and other friends.fleep
Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached.
Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.
All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.
That's a very elegant description. Thank you for putting things so clearly.As a model (thought-experiment) I was mostly happy with what you were saying.
One small 'glitch' would be the statement:“Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.”Actually, if the object is 'dropped' rather than pushed downwards it starts from rest (not 32 fps) - this may have been what you meant? - and accelerates downwards.
I'm happy that your description of columns of air is one way of thinking of what's going on - this is not dissimilar to the approach of 'ensembles' in statistical mechanics. Also, if all you do is assume that this is an 'average day' then of course there is no reason why you shouldn't assume that we have an 'average' 14.7 psi at sea level. If this is all you use average values for then there is no disagreement.
Where I would challenge you is that I think, possibly, you are taking your model of columns a little too far with the bit about the 15.7 PSI.
We seem to be converging in our views a bit?
My theory has never had anything but resistance before, but your many intelligent challenges are what make a well educated man a real teacher. I think you have taught me a great deal.)Is it time for me to thank you and others for helping me through a very tough part of my whole theory, and may I now try to connect all the other ‘dots”? fleep
Fleep and paul.fr,Fleep - if you wish to explain further how you join the dots then I would be interested to see it. If you'd rather put your thoughts in order and save it for a later day then of course I'd understand.Batroost
You say "This is all to say, that a mass also falls naturally through a vacuum, without “need” of any downward “attraction”, until it strikes any solid “floor”." (and similar things.)How do you define downward?In the case of model 1 you say "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”."Again, same question, how does it know which way is downward? Equivalently, how does it "know" where the floor is, in order to aim for it?If there isn't some force acting on things to make them fall "down" how come they "know" not to go sideways, or up, or stay still? I say that force is gravity and I don't understand what "downward" means except in terms of in the direction of the force of gravity
"As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”"Sorry, but that's the oposite of what I said; "I say that force is gravity".What happens if my helpful robot friend (who doesn't need any air and doesn't take any to the moon with him) stands on the moon and drop a rock?Does the rock stay still, fall towards the earth or fall towards the moon?I say it falls to the moon and that's due to gravity.
I haven't been following this closely. If gravity is not supplying the force which pulls bodies of mass together, what is?Could you also explain how you have arrived at rule 2? I dont see why a mass in a sealed gas filled container in would float inside the container in a vaccuum, or do you only mean in space? What would happen to a mass in a sealed container which was evacuated of gas, but still sealed from the seperate vaccuum of space? (not to suggest that there are many different kinds of vaccuum, but that if a vaccuum-filled sealed container was sent into space, I would expect to see a body of mass inside it act in avery similar way to the same sealed container filled with gas)
How do you explain Cavendish's experiment etc.I think it's down to Newton being right etc.can we leave relativity out of this please because it generally gives me a headache).
Also, when you say that "If matter had “attractive force” as Newton theorized in his “Theory of gravitation”, people and objects would not be floating in the air inside the ship, or at least, other floating objects would be massing together in the air of the ship. This does not happen at all, even though with free flotation, there is a perfect condition in which this could happen, but it does not, because gravitational attraction is an incorrect theory. Objects even touch as they slowly pass, but none stay together." Have you worked out just how slowly they would drift together?Imagine 2 balls of mass 1 kg set free in space a metre apart. They would accelerate together at about 0.0000000000667 m/s/sthe longest space flights are about a year. If nothing else acted on the 2 objects then after a year they would have picked up a speed of 2mm/sec.Do you really think anyone would notice?
There really is a perfectly measurable force; its not "some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable"It's perfectly measurable and, for things as big as the earth its even quite big. It's called gravity. It works fine and it is the right "size" to explain Caendishes results and the tides. Why try to introduce some new theory?Something that is insignificant for a pair of 1KG balls can be significant when the balls weigh as much as the moon and the earth. You ask "then where does your speed scale fit in?" It fits in perfectly well thank you. If I change the experiment to make one of the balls the mass of the earth (6X 10^24 Kg) and then increase the distance to equal the earth's radius (6.4X10^6 Metres)then I get a force thats 9.77 Newtons and that would accelerat the 1 KG ball at about 9.8 m/s/s Exactly what is observed in reality.It's all very well for you to say "I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts"." but you really need to have an alternative explanation for things like Cavendish's work. You can say that you don't wish to talk about Newton's or Einsteins theories. Fair enough. You can't sensibly ignore experimental results like those produced by Cavendish.Gravity really does exist; it's why I'm sat on a chair not floating in space and it's perfectly measurable. It's not a strong force so you need very big things or very sensitive measurements but that doesn't stop it being real.
Newton ignored many attempts by others to get him to explain "causality" when it came to gravity and pressed ahead with his ideas despite proof of cause. Newton saw the apple fall and by observation assumed that the inherent positive attraction of the earth's "gravity" caused it to fall toward the earth and yet, we still do not know what gravity is or its cause.If gravity was a pushing force and not attractive and affected mass, wouldn't the observations be the same?Two objects would still approach each other but not by attraction, observation of planets and tides would still be the same, and you would still be able to sit on that chair. Bee
You need an explanation of Cavendish's result and a reason to not believe in gravity..Why introduce the electrostatic force equation when you can't explain why you don't accept the experimental evidence from Cavendish and many other things?Just for the record, while they both have an inverse square law there is a real difference. Like charges repel...
1 Your theory offers no explanation of anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain.2 Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.3 Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.
"If gravity can cross 238,000 miles through space (as a force), and “pull our tides”, then what prevents gravity from attracting masses to any “floor” inside rocket ships, even when close to the moon?Why doesn’t this deserve an answer?"I don't recall anyone saying it doesn't. It pulls the floor down and it pulls you down too so you don't fall to the floor because it's falling away.Any talk of a calculated escape velocity tacitly axccepts Newtonian gravity; that's what the escape velocity is calculated from.You are also mistaken in thinking that you need to reach escape velocity to leave the earth and get to the moon. In principle you could do it by slowly climbing a long ladder.Coulomb's law only applies to charged bodies. The earth and moon are not significantly charged.
The earth is indeed made of huge numbers of charged thigs. The + charges and the - charges cancel each other out. There is therefore no overall charge for Coulomb's law to apply to. I have already calculated the Coulomb's law forces between the earth and the moon. As expected for 2 uncharged bodies, the force is zero.It is indeed significant that this force is zero; it means that your theory is dead in the water. (No it does not.)When you first introduced Coulomb's law I pointed out that gravity always adds up but electrical forces tend to cancel out.