Atmospheric pressure and its effect

  • 107 Replies
  • 58049 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #50 on: 10/05/2007 19:01:24 »
Quote
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”.

No this is a simplification. For a change I'll quote Wicki (as I like the succinct way it is described):

Heterosphere
Below the turbopause at an altitude of about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere has a more-or-less uniform composition (apart from water vapor) as described above; this constitutes the homosphere.[4] However, above about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere begins to have a composition which varies with altitude. This is essentially because, in the absence of mixing, the density of a gas falls off exponentially with increasing altitude, but at a rate which depends on the molar mass. Thus higher mass constituents, such as oxygen and nitrogen, fall off more quickly than lighter constituents such as helium, molecular hydrogen, and atomic hydrogen. Thus there is a layer, called the heterosphere, in which the earth's atmosphere has varying composition. As the altitude increases, the atmosphere is dominated successively by helium, molecular hydrogen, and atomic hydrogen. The precise altitude of the heterosphere and the layers it contains varies significantly with temperature.


100km is a long way up! And after that there are changes in concentrations but no layers composed of single gases.


Quote
Pascal’s law is about pressures that exceed fluid and/or atmospheric pressure

No it isn't. It applies to any sealed container - regardless of the pressure oustide the container. It is just as applicable to a container holding only a few millibars of pressure - so it works for a Condenser under a Turbine.

Quote
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.

You're not really suggesting that there is a measureable stratification of molecular gases in a tube long enough to hold in your hand (there isn't)? Or did I not explain the example I was presenting very well? My thought-experiment was intended to convey the idea of tube, say a metre long, which you carry up and down a montain. Perhaps go back and reread it from this point of view?

Quote
Come on, Batroost.  Your example is a red herring, and I suspect that you know it. Are you testing me?

No this is a wholly sincere attempt to get you to see/accept the difference between using an average value and correting to datum conditions. Your previous post clearly used the latter to justify the former and I believe this to be a fundamental error in scientific method. As I say, sincere - but perhaps we're talking at cross purposes...(see below):

Quote
You’re still thinking that I’m saying that air “pushes” things down?

Yes. I can't understand what you're saying any other way. How else can the 'weight' of air above a falling body make it accelerate downwards? Or have I mis-understood your ealier statements?

Quote
We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc.

Quote
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

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.

As ever, best wishes,

Batroost
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #51 on: 10/05/2007 19:05:01 »
Quote
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.

Thanks Rosy, good point. We have some other large steel doors at work and lots of HVAC. As you say sometimes just a few millibars pressure difference across the door can make them very hard to move - once you get them 'cracked' and the pressure equalises you're OK though.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #52 on: 10/05/2007 19:46:19 »
(Simplifying your first question) -
Q - “How can (changeable) air pressure be responsible for (unchangeable) gravity?”

A - The answer that my theory produces, is that air pressure does not “change” the properties of mass in any way, because air (except as weather, etc.) can not “change” mass.

That change, due to the weather, is exactly the change I mean. It's quite a big change and it doesn't affect the weight of things.

(Simplifying your second question) -
Q - “How can a specific (measured) air pressure value be responsible for gravity that varies at the poles or the equator?”

A - The answer that my theory produces is the same as my first answer, but, with this qualification:

Regardless of whether we are seeking either a specific (measured) air pressure value, or (making its comparison to) the scientifically created and recognized Datum, (or “global standard value”), the value produced by any specific measurement taken, is always a “product” of that one, (and only that one), location, as measured under the specific air pressure of the moment, as governed by the specific weather conditions existing at that location at the moment.

Let's start out by saying what we are talking about. I mean that I can get a rock and hang it on a spring balance. I can measure the length of the spring. That gives me a measure of the force of gravity.
I can also measure air pressure with, for example, a capacitance manometer or an aneroid barometer.
If I measure the length of the spring at sea level here in the UK and note the pressure then (say I do it when thepressure is unusually low) then I go to the top of the Alps and wait until the weather happens to be high pressure so the pressure is the same as it was back at sea level in the UK the length of the spring will be shorter. I can carry on doing this all over the world and the results I get tally with Newtonian gravity.

Same air pressure, different gravity.
Unless you are saying that the whole of earth's atmosphere (which is *broadly constant) contributes to my little experiment I can't see how you can explain how something that stays the same can account for something that changes.
If you do think that all the worlds air contributes, but you don't seem to believe in gravity, what force is it that the air uses to influence my experiment in the UK when most of the worlds air is many miles away?

*Also, the overall average pressure of the earth's atmosphere changes as we move towards and away from the sun; the mean temperature changes and the pressure varies along with it. Gravity doesn't.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #53 on: 11/05/2007 13:40:16 »
Quote
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.

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

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #54 on: 11/05/2007 18:53:58 »
Fleep,

That's a very elegant description. Thank you for putting things so clearly.

As a model (thought-expermient) I was mostly happy with what you were saying. One small 'glitch' would be the statement:

Quote
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 wht you meant? - and accelerates downwards. This acceleration is not, initially, at 32 fps/s. At 62 miles above the equator I calculate that the initial acceleration would be reduced by roughly 3936.22/(3963.2+62)2, or by about 3% - call it 31 fps/s. So after 1 second it is travelling at 31 fps, after 2, 62 oand so on. As I said, only a glitch.

Quote
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.

I'm happy that your description of columns of air is one way of thinking of what's going on - this is not dis-similar to the approach of 'ensembles' in statistical mechanics. Also, if all you do is asume 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. As far as a very simple observation is concerned, if I drop a weight, even a very heavy one, from one hand to another, say a distance of a few feet, then I do not feel the weight of the dropped object until it arrives in my hand. There is no increase in pressure in the column of air that contains the object, below the object. By extension, in your thought experiment I can't believe that the object has any effect on the air below - Note that I may have mis-understood what you were saying here? Perhaps you hadn't intended to mean this?

If I haven't mis-understood then you might be asking 'where has the weight of the object gone then'? To which I think there are a couple of answers. Firstly, the air isn't physically divided into columns so any weight impressed upon the air is very quickly spread out sideways below the object; otherwise you'd feel it when an airplane flew over [:)]. But this can't be the whole answer becuase objects fall down on the Moon as well - with no atmosphere to see an increase in pressure below them. I think the true answer is that the weight is simply how we perceive an acceleration of masses one-toward-another. Let me give you then a twist to your explanation:

Imagine that the experiment is taking place in a 'hard' tube but that the object, though heavy, is full of holes. This means that the air can pass through the object relatively quickly and there is no appreciable wave of air being pushed in front of it i.e. we are not forming a piston under which the air will be compressed. We still have a column of air that is 62 miles high - big tube! - and it still contains both an air column and a falling weight. But I see no reason why the pressure in the tube should be higher than 14.7 psi - provided that the object is free to fall.

We seem to be converging in our views a bit?  [???]

Best wishes,

Batroost
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #55 on: 11/05/2007 19:16:10 »
Fleep,

Another thought - because this has been bothering me a bit - why don't you notice a falling weight when you are below it? As you say, the column of air is now effectively heavier.

But, the difference is one of equilibrium. Without a falling weight, the atmosphere in your model can be considered to be in equilibrium. That is, at each height in the atmosphere ("cubic inch") the forces upwards and downwards will always just about balance.

Conversely, the falling weight is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere as it is accelerating downwards. So there is no reason why the forces in the "inches" below the falling weight should reflect its presence.

Regards,

Batroost
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #56 on: 12/05/2007 15:08:36 »
Hi Batroost:

Quote
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.

Thank you, Sir.

Quote
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 certainly agree.

Quote
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.

Excellent.  We agree again.

Quote
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.


O.K. I can see where you have trouble with this, but if we keep thinking in a relative way, (even metaphorically at times), because we are working with an average model, then we must admit that in the context of the entire weight of the entire global atmosphere, there is an “extra” 1 pound up there that falsifies the atmosphere’s true entire weight by a single pound, which is neither air, nor any part of the atmosphere. It must be accounted for as additional weight, regardless of how its volume disturbs the atmosphere itself.

You don’t feel the weight of that pound, or the object you toss from hand to hand, or the atmospheric influence of many thousands of airplanes in flight around the planet. We don’t feel the ponderous weight of millions of tons of water that has been “sucked up” to fall as rain and snow. They too, are temporarily “out of their natural element”, because water’s “work” is on the land. We accept water as “part of the atmosphere”, but in their fluid state, combinations of hydrogen and oxygen are, of course, neither air, nor a gas.
All these extra things up there, do not truly “belong to the atmosphere”, but of course we stick with 14.7 PSI as the average at datum, and include the weight of water, which only makes sense, because there is always plenty of it up there. Every other particle of anything that is not a gas, (and water, since we have chosen to include it), is a foreign substance to the atmosphere. All welcome and unwelcome processes that are functioning in the atmosphere are “doing a job up there”, because the nature of their individual weight/mass/volume, etc., in relation to the “permissions” ascribed by the nature of the atmosphere, will continue to work unnoticed.

And to address your concern about the 15.7 PSI ascribed to my Datum column of 1 cubic inch, I have “elected” to say that since the token 1 pound weight is adding 1 pound to the weight of the entire atmosphere, I will include that one pound in one single model column, as that extra pound is mandatory to the completion of the model’s explanation, and that’s why I keep speaking in terms of a “closed vessel model”.  That’s why the 1 pound must be included in my “model column”.
The atmosphere itself is, of course, an independent “facility”, where bugs, and birds, and planes, and even pollution, are “visitors”, and their combined weight is simply being “accommodated”.

Quote
We seem to be converging in our views a bit?
 

Yes, we are finally getting close, I hope. I appreciate the compliment at the beginning too. (Are they ever tough to come by). 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

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #57 on: 12/05/2007 15:27:07 »
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


Well. if this topic is truely over, I think both fleep and batroost deserved an award. This is what a polite, informed and educational discussion should be like. Big it up for fleep and batroot. [;D]

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #58 on: 12/05/2007 20:29:45 »
Fleep and paul.fr,

Many thanks to you both.

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.

Best wishes,

Batroost
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #59 on: 21/05/2007 20:38:39 »
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

Hi again:

Before I restart by summarizing what I think we agreed on, have you any questions left about the models used to explain:

Falling through Earth atmosphere?
Falling through vacuum onto the moon?
Falling of the shuttle through the vacuum?

They are re-stated below, just to save having to back up & look, but they are "cleaned up" now.

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

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.

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. 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 32fps/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 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 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”.
============================

Falling of a mass onto the moon.

Model 2 – To track and explain the falling of a mass from a vacuum onto the moon.
=========

(The moon has no atmosphere, except for a slight “skin” directly upon its surface.)

“Build” a 62 mile tower on the moon, simply to match the height of our Karman Line.
The cubic inch block starts falling from the top.
The cube encounters no air resistance, so its increase in velocity is uncontrolled.
There is no “soft closed vessel” of 1 square inch I.D. because there is no atmosphere.
There is no air friction, so nothing slows it down. It falls through a vacuum.
If it fell far enough through open vacuum, it could assumedly achieve fall velocity like the Shuttle in space – about 17,500 mph.
It might only be possible to guess what speed it could achieve in only 62 miles.
The cube hits the moon, bounces, (or imbeds), and stays there, like a meteor would.

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”.

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

Falling of a shuttle through the vacuum of space.

Model 3 - The sealed Shuttle falls like a cube, (or is propelled) through the vacuum.

It is a closed vessel, and must conform inside to Pascal’s Law (of fluid/air pressure).
It encloses an artificial atmosphere that is much like our own natural atmosphere.
Pressure is exerted on all interior surfaces, objects and people, at right angles.
The ship itself can not “know” if it’s on the Earth, or in the vacuum.
The ship can not “know” that it is falling (or being propelled) through a vacuum.
The ship can not “know” what is up, down, or sideways.
The ship can not “select” any interior area to be its “floor”.
The globally surrounding pressure is constant. Nothing has a place to “belong”.
All loose objects and people are in a surrounding pressure that has no directed force.
Every loose mass floats in the air inside the ship, (OR outside. in a pressurized suit).

This is all to say, that a closed vessel (or a sealed suit) falls naturally through a vacuum without any kind of downward or other directional “attraction”, until it strikes (or is manoeuvred onto) any “floor”. Without manual (rocket engine) intervention, the ship simply falls without order or direction through the vacuum of space like a solid “cube”, unless or until a “solid floor” is encountered to crash-land upon.

If the ship returns to the Earth, the Model 1 basic principles apply, except of course, the ship’s entry is controlled inwards. If it simply dropped like the cube in Model 1, it would act exactly like the cube in Model 1, but over a vertical air column of its own size/area of configuration.
==================================================================

May I go on from here, or are there questions or debate?

Thanks

fleep


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #60 on: 22/05/2007 21:20:48 »
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

« Last Edit: 22/05/2007 21:22:32 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #61 on: 23/05/2007 01:19:49 »
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



Yes, I did say that Model 2 was about an object falling from a tower onto the moon, so there was a floor, and that means “downwards”. Of course it could have “fallen” in any direction, since it was up there in the vacuum, but I designed the model, and I get to say which direction it “fell”. Let's just say that I touched it to start it "falling" downwards, towards the surface of the moon. I have to direct it because, if you are up in the shuttle and a wrench floats towards you, you give it a little touch and it goes where you pushed it. There is no “floor”. It won’t fall “downwards” because there isn’t any “downwards” in space. I had to start it downwards.


In Model 1, which is through our atmosphere, it fell downwards because that is what naturally happens in an atmosphere. When the Mars explorer vehicles landed there, they fell onto the planet and bounced along. That’s what happens in atmospheres. Weights seek the floor of an atmosphere. They don’t fall off in any “unknown’ direction unless they’re in the vacuum of space.
That’s what I meant by “downwards”. It’s simply a term that follows the design of what the model is supposed to show.

As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”, that’s what my theory is about. Gravity has no “force” as far as my theory is concerned, and the models are designed to say that. Gravity is simply “weight”. It’s inside us. It attracts nothing, because it can’t. Gravity is benign.

Newton was mostly right in his observations, but I contend that he was wrong about “gravitation”. Give me a chance to try to prove MY theory. Arguing would be a waste of time in the forum, since all of my studies say that gravity does not attract anything. I will not argue whether gravity attracts because all of the evidence I have and will produce is designed to show that gravity is merely an “intensive property” - (see wikipedia).

I’m going forward with my theory.

Thanks, for input, B. C.

fleep


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #62 on: 23/05/2007 21:21:52 »
"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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #63 on: 23/05/2007 23:08:43 »
"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.

Cheeeez! I meant to say, that you said that "Gravity has force", not "Gravity has no force". I'll have to read more carefully, or watch more closely what I'm saying.
Anyway, I say gravity has no force. Unlike what you seem to believe, I say that gravity is "weight", and that's all that it is. It is not "force", and it does not "attract" other matter. As I said, I'm not arguing this anymore, because that's what my theory will try to sustain and explain.

(What's a robot got to do with this?) Your robot's rock will fall onto the moon, of course, just like my model explained.It will fall due to its weight. Gravity is ONLY weight. It is not a force.

What are you getting at? I said all this in my last messg.

Thanks for input.

fleep

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #64 on: 24/05/2007 13:50:14 »
To any who are following this theory:

None seem convinced that Newton's Theory of Gravitation is incorrect, as my own theory claims. I have prepared the following to best explain my thoughts for staying this course of reason.

Rules of Falling Objects

Rule 1 - Objects in space vacuum or in a natural atmosphere, must fall when “released”.
Rule 2 - Objects in space vacuum, if sealed inside a gaseous atmosphere, must float.
Rule 3 - No objects are “attracted” to fall towards anything, or one another, but simply obey Rule 1 or 2.

Explanations:

A)If the conventional belief that “falling through space” was all that was required for objects to float in the artificial atmosphere inside space ships, then Rule 2, (which we know to be true), would be violating Rule 1, (which we also know to be true).  Therefore, the correct answer to the question, “Why do the astronauts float in the air inside the shuttle”, can not be, “Because the astronauts are falling through space”. They float because the surrounding pressure has no specific direction to “locate a floor” upon which to set them down. (Pascal’s Law is the explanation.)

B)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.
There seems no better test than this flotation to dispel Newton’s Theory of Gravitation ("attraction" between bodies of matter) as simply an understandable misinterpretation of his observation, over 300 years ago. Gravity does not attract. It is not a "force"

After careful consideration of all this, will anyone concur with this viewpoint before I have to try to continue defending it? If so, can anyone please correct any error(s) in the above logic?

Thanks to all for the opportunity to pick your brains.

fleep

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #65 on: 24/05/2007 15:24:02 »
I must confess, I haven't been following this closely.  A couple of questions immediately spring to mind when reading the summary above, which may have already been answered, please humour me to summarise it for others.

If gravity is not the attractive force, what keeps things in orbit? unless newtons other ideas are also wrong, If the moon was not attracted to the earth (ie, there was not a force acting on the moon pulling it towards the earth), it's momentum would mean it would keep going, in a straight line away from earth.  Likewise, the earth would distance itself from the sun, and instead of rotating, our galaxy would just drift apart...

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)
« Last Edit: 24/05/2007 15:29:45 by BenV »

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #66 on: 24/05/2007 19:45:34 »
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)

Hi BenV:

I hope you will go back some and review how we got here.
To answer your question about "what force is pulling masses together, you must consider this: Science (in general) accepts that gravity is the attractive force, and I'm working at proving logically that it can not be. There are a dozen theories of gravity in Wikipedia, and they are all still just theories. I'm trying to eliminate the major headache, which is "Newton's Law of Gravitation". If I theorize another "force" that's doing the job described, mine will simply be Theory 13. Let me do one jpb at a time please. I'll get to that when I get some acceptances of what I (hopefully) am proving as I go along.
Why cut to another "chase", when I can cut to the "capture?"

About Rule 2 - ("Objects in space vacuum, if sealed inside a gaseous atmosphere, must float.")
The sealed container in the vacuum of space is the Shuttle. The objects inside it are people and things.

Go back up and find my Model 1,2, and 3 explanations. They are graphic and unnecessary to restate here.

You expect that if the shuttle's atmosphere was evacuated, all would still float. No they would not. See Model 2. the reaction would be like that. They would fall to whatever serves as a "floor", depending on which way the ship is going, or falling.

If it still doesn't answer your questions, please come back with them.

Thanks for your input.

fleep



*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #67 on: 24/05/2007 20:33:36 »
The nice thing about a robot is that it doesn't need to take any air with it.
How do you explain Cavendish's experiment which showed that things do atract each other in just the way Newton's theory predicted and in complete oposition to your 3rd "rule"?
I think it's down to Newton being right (to a very good aproximation; 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/s
the 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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #68 on: 25/05/2007 02:06:20 »
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).

I still contend that even if there is some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable, it doesn't come from gravity, which is nothing but the equivalence of weight. You want to forget about relativity? Sure. Leave Einstein out, and Cavendish and Newton too. I'm trying to get on with my own theory.

[/quote]
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/s
the 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?

Well. You're saying what I am. The kind of insignificance you're talking about doesn't even deserve any consideration. Compare what you're talking about to claims that the moon's gravity "pulls" our tides. If gravitational attraction is operating at a speed scale where a planet rotating at the speed of the Earth can be "attracted" from 238,000 miles away, as it turns, then where does your speed scale fit in?

Nothing "pulls" the tides in my theory. There's obviously something else "pushing" our tides, and it's not gravity. I'll cover that later.

My theory has to get flowing before I can confuse the issue by bringing in new phases of my total theory while we keep fighting about old arguments like "gravity that attracts". If my theory's logic needs clarifying, I'll try to do that, but I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts".

Thanks

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #69 on: 26/05/2007 12:12:41 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #70 on: 26/05/2007 15:13:09 »
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.

Hi BC;

Before I say another word to continue a never-ending difference of opinions, please look ae "Coulomb's Law", in Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you want.

Thanks

fleep

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #71 on: 27/05/2007 19:22:42 »
Hi all.

This has been a good debate and I thank you for it as it has helped explain many things to me, however I would like to say this.

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

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #72 on: 27/05/2007 19:52:24 »
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

Hi Bee;

Your question is welcome. I introduced Coulomb to the argument to sort of raise the ante of the discussion. Here is what I'm thinking:

Let’s look at Coulomb.

“The formula to Coulomb's Law is of the same form as Newton's 3rd Law: The electrical force of one body exerted on the second body is equal to the force exerted by the second body on the first. “(Wikipedia).

What a strange “coincidence”! If Coulomb’s Law is the electrical counterpart of Newton’s 3rd Law of Mechanics, does “Newton’s Law of Gravitation” not suddenly seem (in reality), a “force” that is really only an early misinterpretation of what Coulomb discovered? Is the force attributed to “gravitational attraction really an external force? If gravity is not a force and does not attract anything, then our tides must be “pushed” along by the moon’s burden “bending” of our atmosphere, as when it is “coming off an eastern coast”, like Europe. The planets in our galaxy are obviously held in controlled orbits. What makes more sense – Things like an electrical network of Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres (as “control switchboards”), and neutrinos radiating in all directions from our sun, or “gravitational attraction”? Electrostatics seem to be a far more plausible reason for observations made between masses, because they are always relevant to the moment and the circumstance, while “gravitational attraction’”, with all the many arguments against it, is far less plausible than Coulomb, even though Coulomb’s law came along a century later.

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #73 on: 27/05/2007 20:37:23 »
"Before I say another word to continue a never-ending difference of opinions"
We are not talking about a difference of opinion. We are talking about the fact that gtravity is real, and measurable.
Opinion doesn't enter into it; You need an explanation of Cavendish's result and a reason to not believe in gravity..

I'm familiar enough with Coulombs law that I don't feel I need to look it up.
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 (and that's not suprising really) there is a real difference. Like charges repel but all gravitational forces are atractive.

If you think about it, an inverse square law is not that odd. Imagine that something is spreading out from a mass or charge (maybe grtavitons or virtual photons) That "something" gets spread out as you go further from the centre. As you go out the area that this "stuff" is spread over increases with the square of the distance. It makes sense that at twice the distance it is spread across 4 times the area and it's four times weaker.
It's not an odd coincidence; it's perfectly reasonable.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #74 on: 28/05/2007 02:33:40 »
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...

Hi BC:

What makes you think that laboratory experiments that are designed to prove a point do not sometimes produce only and exactly the results that they were intended to produce? A mission that is designed to reproduce expected results is frequently tailored along lines that run parallel to the original thinking, and thus produce a reinforcement of a (possible) fallacy. Math can even be tailor-made after the fact to explain observations, but even math can tell lies.

I knew a high school principle that used to entertain us with his mathematics hobby. He “proved” by algebra that 1 = 0, and it followed logically (back then) all the way through the equation. Why does everything we work with today, excepting perhaps the proven functions of physical forces and types of energy that run our industries and homes, still carry the label of “theory”?

I don’t think I actually said that I don’t believe in “gravity”, itself. I remember saying that gravity is the same thing as weight, and that it is benign, and that it is not a force, and that it is only a property of matter. If gravity someday proves to be “something other than an attractive force”, the word “gravity” might become only another word for that something else.

I think I have explained my point of view that from the very obvious performance of falling and floating objects in nature, that there is no reason to believe that gravity must attract anything, but with orbits and galaxies and black holes, etc.,” and other “protective centers of containment” throughout the universe, it is far more logical that they are governed by “forces that separate them”, not attract them to anything else. I believe this to be fundamentally logical. “Containment” equals “unique function”, even often accompanied by “identifiable purpose”. “Random attraction” only equals “elemental anarchy”. If you’re going to begin with logic, then you have to start at the “beginning”.

 Apply your mathematics to the theory of “accretion” and I think you will find that massive round bodies the size of Jupiter and larger, could never have “come together (by attraction) and formed “round balls” of matter, even over billions of years since the big bang. The accretion theory is non-believable to me.  Why would all the planets and huge space bodies we can see that started to be attracted together, turn out round? Does “attractive gravity” have some other rule than “rotation against nothingness” that makes them become round? What could that be? A globally “compressive force” should make far more sense, if you expect to produce roundness. (Leave the "ovality" and the elliptical orbits out of this to simplify it for now.)
As you pointed out, (something that we both knew), “Like charges repel”.  Coulomb’s “similarity to Newton’s 3rd Law” is more relevant than Newton’s Theory of gravitational attraction”, in my opinion.

If gravitational attraction was real, what would make round masses form from a point of central dissipation at the moment of the Big Bang, when all the ‘products” of the bang flew radially off in every direction? If “attraction” began to commence at some later point after the bang, what “force” governed the localization of concentrations of matter to even begin to “think” about “forming into separate balls”? How did “just the right stuff” get in “just the right place” so that everything turned out as beautifully as it all did?

We can argue against the recognized academic monopoly, or we can think for ourselves, even though “free thinking”, even as a concept; has almost become heresy in today’s Orwellian world.

I did not answer the question, and the foregoing is meant to express exactly why I did not. I am not defending against other theories that might demand further study on my part, unless that is necessary to further my own theory. That would take forever to get my own theory across. If that’s not acceptable, I might as well just shut it down in this forum and go elsewhere.

Attack what I theorize, if you must, and I'll try to answer your questions. I'm sorry, but logic always has to happen before math comes into play, so I won't contest anything but the logic that appears to, or has been reported to have been that which led to other theories.

Thanks

Fleep


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #75 on: 28/05/2007 15:01:51 »
Feel free to find out what Cavendish's experiment sought to find out. Then explain how it could "produce only and exactly the results that they were intended to produce".

"I knew a high school principle that used to entertain us with his mathematics hobby. He “proved” by algebra that 1 = 0, and it followed logically (back then) all the way through the equation"
No he didn't. You cannot prove something that isn't true. It's most likely that he did something that was mathematically the equivalent of dividing by zero (which is undefined) but didn't look like it.

When you say "I don’t think I actually said that I don’t believe in “gravity”, itself. I remember saying that gravity is the same thing as weight, and that it is benign, and that it is not a force, and that it is only a property of matter." It's still not clear to me what you think gravity is. I think it's the force that every body exerts on every other in proportion to the product of their masses and the reciprocal of the square of their distance. You can slander as many experimentalist as you please but this force has been measured many times.


As for "Apply your mathematics to the theory of “accretion” and I think you will find that massive round bodies the size of Jupiter and larger, could never have “come together (by attraction) and formed “round balls” of matter, even over billions of years since the big bang. The accretion theory is non-believable to me. "
So what? just because you don't believe (or don't wish to believe) something doesn't mean it's false. It is a valid scientific theory; that means that it is in principle falsifiable. If you want to prove it wrong you just have to find a counterexample
If you think that gravity doesn't colapse things into balls then, in the first place, please let me know why not  (because there are a lot of folk out their with much better maths skills than me who have modeled it and they think it does work) and in the second place please let me know what you think it does predict?

You ask "If gravitational attraction was real, what would make round masses form from a point of central dissipation at the moment of the Big Bang, when all the ‘products” of the bang flew radially off in every direction? If “attraction” began to commence at some later point after the bang, what “force” governed the localization of concentrations of matter to even begin to “think” about “forming into separate balls”? How did “just the right stuff” get in “just the right place” so that everything turned out as beautifully as it all did?"
The simple answer is that gravity did all that by attracting the bits to one another to overcome the original momentum they had.
You say to attack what you theorise
OK
1 Your theory is unnecessary- it 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.

The third of these is enough from a scientific point of view to kill the theory.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #76 on: 29/05/2007 01:44:01 »
Quote
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.

Re Your point #1:
For one thing, it explains what makes astronauts float in the sealed Shuttle in space. but do not float on Earth.

It says: "Rules of Falling Objects" (clarified here:)

Rule 1 - Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”.(and so they do fall.)
Rule 2 - Objects inside the artificial pressurized atmosphere of ships or suits in space must float. (and so they do float.)

Explanation:

If the conventional belief that “falling through space” was all that was required for objects to float in the artificial atmosphere inside space ships and/or space suits, then Rule 2, (which we know to be true), would be violating Rule 1, (which we also know to be true).  (Both could not be true.) Therefore, the correct answer to the question, “Why do the astronauts float in the air inside the shuttle”, can not be “Because the astronauts are falling through space”. They float because the surrounding pressure has no specific direction to “locate a floor” upon which to set them down. (Pascal’s Law is the explanation.)

(Pressure goes where it is directed, but pressure in the Shuttle has no "direction", so it goes "everywhere". It has no directionally assigned "job" to do.)

(Where does Newton fit into this by your interpretation of his Law of gravitation?)This alone is new theory, supported by the evidence that the common claim that "astronauts float because they are falling through space" can not be true.
==============================================================
Re: Your point #2:("Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.)"

See messg 90389 - (Me to you). What did this not explain?
===============================================================
Re: Your point #3: ("Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.")

How can you call any experimental observations "facts", when they are the product of mathematics that were written to explain something that is a theory? Coulomb's (electrical) law's equivalence to Newton's 3rd (physics)Law is something that compares 2 things: ("Electrical repulsion" and "Pull gravity")
I happen to lean towards Coulomb, as the explanation of a "force" that does things out there.

Facts born of facts = facts.
Facts born of theory = Theoretical "evidence".

Please look at Messg # 90024, 90389,(to you), and 90696. Maybe you missed something I've already covered.

Thanks.

fleep


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #77 on: 29/05/2007 13:25:22 »
Re. 1
I said it doesn't explain anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain. "Weightlesness" in free fall is perfectly in accord with Newton.
Rule 1 as written "Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”." simply isn't true. Satelites are in open space and they don't fall.

When your theory doesn't agree with reality it is not because reality is wrong.
Re. 2
The presence or absense of an atmosphere makes no difference. They still float when they go outside the ship. As they wait in the airlock as it decompresses they don't notice any change in gravity.
Rule 2 is nonsense; things in free fall float- an atmosphere isn't relevant.


Re.
"How can you call any experimental observations "facts", when they are the product of mathematics that were written to explain something that is a theory?"
I don't need to.
Cavendish observed the twisting of a torsion balance when he moved lots of mercury near to the 2 balls that were suspended on the balance.
See, no theory and no maths!
Just an experimental observation made many years ago and repeated many times since with increasing precision. Here's a site wher they get students to do it.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf

If your theory does not explain this observation then, again, it is not because reality is at fault.
This is not a fact born of theory (whatever that may mean) it's just fact.
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Is it because it wrecks your "theory"?
I have aske many times
Please explain how your theory (that things don't generally atract each other) deals with the experimental observation that they do.
Otherwise give up.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #78 on: 29/05/2007 16:12:52 »
Surely, the observation by Cavendish only shows that the balls nearer twist the balance and only observation proves that.

Could it be equally as valid to say that an outside force of gravity was pushing them together and that the mass of the objects is absorbing or masking some of the gravity thus causing a difference in force?




*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #79 on: 29/05/2007 18:02:09 »
Hi BC;

You said  - Re: Point 1 – “Rule 1 as written "Objects in open space or in any natural atmosphere, must fall when “dropped”." simply isn't true. Satellites are in open space and they don't fall.”

You’re not reading what I’m saying.
Rule 1 said that “objects that are “dropped” in space will fall”.  We both know that satellites are engineered into stable orbits. Satellites are not “dropped” into space. You know that.
.
 
You said - Re. Point 2 – “The presence or absence of an atmosphere makes no difference. They still float when they go outside the ship. As they wait in the airlock as it decompresses they don't notice any change in gravity.
Things in free fall float- an atmosphere isn't relevant.”

My Rule 2 - Objects inside the artificial pressurized atmosphere of ships or suits in space must float. (and so they do float.)

They float around in the airlock too, only because they have an artificial atmosphere in their suits! Things in free fall do not float; they fall. Once outside the ship, the suits will be falling through space, like the ship, while the people are floating in their atmosphere-filled suits, even as their suits fall. The people are tethered to the falling ship to prevent drifting away.



Re: Your point #3: where you said:
“Cavendish observed the twisting of a torsion balance when he moved lots of mercury near to the 2 balls that were suspended on the balance. See, no theory and no maths!
Just an experimental observation made many years ago and repeated many times since with increasing precision. Here's a site where they get students to do it.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf

This is not a fact born of theory (whatever that may mean) it's just fact.
Why do you keep ignoring it? Is it because it wrecks your "theory"?
I have asked many times-
Please explain how your theory (that things don't generally attract each other) deals with the experimental observation that they do.
Otherwise give up."

To answer the last request (before you propose that I give up), my theory contends that what Cavendish saw was misinterpreted in what he observed as a "gravitational action", while it was another actual cause that created the action that he saw.
This quote is right off the website you gave me: (above)
“The torsional balance was first invented by Coulomb in 1784 and used to measure electrical forces. In 1798, the same method was used by Cavendish to measure the gravitational force.”

Cavendish used Coulomb’s electrical measuring device, which would give the same results. How do you take an electrical measuring device, and use it to measure “gravitational attraction”, a physical theory, and get the same answer, and call your “gravitational attraction”, “proven? I say that Cavendish witnessed an electrical response, like Coulomb did with his device that he invented for measuring electrical forces..

How can it be simply ignored that Tesla and Marconi and the rest used the fact that we live in an “electric universe” to accomplish the things that they did? Electromagnetic attraction and repulsion make sense, even over long distances. What do you think things like the Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres are for? What are light and neutrinos and photons and ions etc., all about? They are real, but what are “gravitons”, and “strings”, and such? They are hypotheticals. Why do Janus and Epimetheus never collide when they trade orbits? Who has ever calculated what “proportion” of like-pole repulsion is dampened by “gravitational attraction”? Why do radios, phones, TV, and computers work across the skies?

Now please answer my (perhaps plausible) observations.

Why would you ever suggest that anyone give up? That is a decision that remains with the author of a theory. If I was insulting you, that would be different. I have made every effort to accommodate your questions, (I think). Please give me a break with your attempts to prevent me from explaining something that could possibly be “an equal plausibility”.

Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #80 on: 29/05/2007 19:10:02 »
The spacewalkers' spanners float. They are not in air. The suits float about too (with the spacemen inside them). The suits are not inside suits and they are not in air.
Not all satelites are man made. Who engineered the launch of the moon?

The torsion balance was indeed invented to measure the forces between charged particles; so what? They get uesd to measure surface tension too. If cavendish had been a few years aerlier he might well have invented it (he was pretty bright) would than mean that all subsequent measurements of the forces on charges would mysteriously be labeled as gravity. Of course not. "Cavendish used Coulomb’s electrical measuring device" is a red herring two balls on a stick on a thread isn't electrical.
Since modern torsional balances use a metal (commonly tungsten) thread all the charge leaks away so the one thing we can be sure is that there isn't an electrical effect. Even if Cavendish used an "insulator" the time over which his experiments ran was so big the charge would have been dissipated.
The reason I can ignore Tesla and Marconi is the same reason that I can ignore Bequerel. His field of physics (radioactivity) was something else. We know this isn't an electrical effect so the work done on electricity has nothing to do with it.
OK, I know that the electromagnetic force is something like 10^34 times bigger than gravity but ,because there are atractive and repulsive aspects to it, they tend to cancel out. Gravity is always atractive so it always adds up. On the grand scale it's big.

As for "Why do Janus and Epimetheus never collide when they trade orbits?" Just wait.
"What do you think things like the Van Allen Belts and magnetospheres are for?"
I don't think they are "for" anything; to ascribe a purpose to them would require that they were deliberately put there. Are you trying to prove the existence of God?
"What are light and neutrinos and photons and ions etc., all about? " I don't know but 2 out of 3 are to do with electromagnetic interactions and the other is to do with one of the nuclear forces. Since we are talking about gravity then, unless you have a grand unification theory up your sleeve, they have nothing to do with this topic.
Not sure what you mean by "Who has ever calculated what “proportion” of like-pole repulsion is dampened by “gravitational attraction”?" but I think the answer might be Millikan (of oil drop fame).
As for
"Why do radios, phones, TV, and computers work across the skies?" Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to do with gravity.

Please stop trying to force electrostatics into this. We know, because of the materials he used,  that Cavendish didn't have any electrical effects to worry about.
Stop saying that he was "mistaken", at least until you have some sort of evidence that he was.
In short, since you have yet to show any problem with Newtonian gravity, any new (non relativistic) theory is redundant. Since the new theory is redundant it's a waste of time.
What I'm asking you to give up on is trying to find a new solution where there isn't a problem.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2007 19:13:12 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #81 on: 30/05/2007 01:30:28 »
Hey BC;

First you said:
"The spacewalkers' spanners float. They are not in air. The suits float about too (with the spacemen inside them). The suits are not inside suits and they are not in air.
Not all satellites are man made. Who engineered the launch of the moon?"

O.K. Let's start from there and come back to the rest later.
Let’s take this all in little bites. Let’s cover only the things happening in the vacuum first, and try to resolve what’s happening in space. Then we’ll carry it back to Earth and see what happened.

No, the spacewalkers' spanners are not "floating". Spacewalks are done with the engines off, so the ship is in free-fall, (if it has not been engineered into a pre-planned orbit). The spacewalkers then too, are also in free-fall. The spanners and the atmosphere-filled suits are not “floating” outside the ship. They are free-falling at the same rate as the walker beside them. A person in a walker’s suit, in this case, is just like being inside the atmosphere of the ship, because the atmospheric pressure in the suit is the same as in the ship. The result is that the body of the person in the suit is “acting” the same as if it was inside the ship. It’s floating in a pressurized atmosphere.
Once in open space, the walkers’ spanners free-fall beside the user at exactly the same rate as the ship, the suit itself, and the person, (who is floating in the atmosphere inside the suit). Remember that in open space, a feather falls at the same rate as a bowling ball, because there is no friction. Everything outside the ship falls at the same rate.
Outside the ship, the astronaut is the only thing that is floating – inside his (globally-exerted)atmosphere-filled (falling) suit. Inside the ship, every loose thing or person is floating in a “blind (globally-exerted) atmosphere” that can not possibly ‘know” where "up or down" is. (Pascal’s Law). (Direction does not matter when you're inside a fitted space-suit).

To differentiate: That’s what is happening in space. Now let’s look at the ship coming home, into our atmosphere.
We know that things fall to the ground from anywhere in our atmosphere. So, the ship comes into our atmosphere, and any floating stuff that is not fastened, starts heading for the “floor” of the ship. Where do they fall to? Where else? They fall to the side of the ship that is lowest in the atmosphere, as the ship comes in. They fall ”downwards”, and it’s happening too fast to be attributed to “gravitational attraction”, which, even admitted by my critics, never "happens" in an instant.

What just happened here? The “rules” of what happens in the vacuum vs. what happens in an atmosphere, completely changed. Stuff doesn’t float in the ship anymore. What made the difference in object behaviour? The change was due to the ship’s entry into the atmosphere, of course. There can be no other reason.

Ergo – Vacuum = one set of rules. Atmosphere = a different set of rules. Transition between the two = conversion to the effects of the other “medium”, depending on whether you’re going out, or coming back.

This is as simple to follow as if you are dry, on a diving board; then you’re getting wet, as you enter the water; then you’re soaking wet, when you go under water. (Or, run the film backwards if you like). These too, are a definition of conditions that change, from one medium to another. You go from your real weight, to your “transition weight”, to your “buoyant weight”.

Is anyone who is following this discussion brave enough to admit that they agree with this whole argument? Are objects floating in the shuttle because the ship’s interior atmospheric pressure doesn’t “know” where the floor is, (under Pascal’s law)? If you can not make yourself decide, then you know that this is logical, simply because “floating in the air because the ship is falling through space” is not even a plausible explanation.


Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #82 on: 30/05/2007 19:32:56 »
OK, lets get my trusty robot friend and put him on a leaky ship and send him to the moon. I will follow on behind in my ship which, of course, is full of air.

We both blast off getting pushed back into our seats- nice simple f=ma stuff. Then the engines cut out and we drift in freefall; both of us can then float about in our ships and so can any spanners we happen to have with us. For want of anything better to do we might put on space suits- that won't make any difference either.
So far we experience identical things even though I'm in air and he's not (except when he put on his suit and it made no difference- lets assume he takes it off again because it's awkward.).
In due course we get near the moon and start to fall towards it. We both accelerate towards the moon until we crash into it.
Still, while the robot has no air, but I do, we experience exactly the same thing.
Of course, if we want to survive then rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship. We get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them, (best make sure the belt's fastened)
Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing.
The vacuum/ air doesn't make a difference.
OK, here's version 2. Rather than firing reto rockets I rely on a really long rubber band that I tied to the earth before I set out ( Just in case you are wondering, it's tied to a ring round the equator so the spinning earth doesn't tangle it up)
Things work out pretty much the same as version 1. The robot and I experience the same thing even though only one of us has air.

OK here's version 3
Rather than the really long rubber band I put a big block of rubber on the moon and fall into that.
Much the same effect, both for me and for my airless counterpart
OK What about version 4 the rubber is replaced by cotton candy (candy floss if it's my side of the ocean)
The effect is stickier but again, my robot friend and I experience exactly the same thing notwithstanding his lack of air.

Finally I replace the cotton candy with air.
Still the same for me and the same for him.

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship of the ship as it lands on the moon is that the retro rockets or the rubber band or the candy or the moon's (newly aquired for this thought experiment) atmosphere force it into me. Same goes for Robby.

OK, if I can put that much air on the moon I might as well have used the stuff on earth (less shipping costs)
That's the same as turning the ship round and coming home. That;'s why I hit the floor of the ship; not because the ship is suddenly surrounded by air, but because it is slowed down by it but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor.

When you write "They fall ”downwards”, and it’s happening too fast to be attributed to “gravitational attraction”, which, even admitted by my critics, never "happens" in an instant." what are you talking about? The best estimate is that gravity travels at the speed of light so how good would your reflexes need to be to spot that it wasn't instant? Even then the transition from zero gravity to normal gravity isn't anything like instant. For what it's worth there's even a technical term for the rate of change of apparent gravity; it's called Jounce and it's important if you are building fairground rides.

All I want is a nice simple reason that makes your theory useful; something like this.
Under (x,y, and z circumstances) whereas Newtonian gravity (aided by Einstein if needs be) says that proposition A will happen, in fact we know that proposition B will happen.
Since my theory predicts B  which is observed whereas conventional gravity predicts that A will occur my theory is better than the conventional view.

BTW, is anyone else following this thread at all?
« Last Edit: 30/05/2007 19:53:41 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #83 on: 31/05/2007 18:09:37 »
Re: Bored chemist
Message ID: 92960

Hi BC; You said (in black) -

My robot friend is in a leaky ship.
I follow in my ship which is full of (hot) air. (Sorry. I couldn’t resist.)

We both blast off getting pushed back into our seats. (Yep) Then the engines cut out and we drift in freefall. (Yep) Both (nope) of us can then float about in our ships with our spanners.

(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.)


We put on space suits- that make no difference. (Yep) We take them off.(OK)
So far we experience identical things (nope – see above) even though I'm in air and he's not. WE start to fall towards the moon . We both accelerate towards the moon until we crash into it.

(nope- no acceleration. You’re already falling at about 17,500 mph since you are in the vacuum).

Still, while the robot has no air, but I do, we experience exactly the same thing. (nope- You are floating in the air. He is on the floor of his ship)

But rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship.

(nope – He’s already on the floor, and you just keep floating, because your blind atmosphere (and the ship) doesn’t know anything is different, even with the rockets fired)

We get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them,

(nope- The ship has encountered no atmosphere to slow it down. You will be a fly on your windscreen when you hit the surface. Nothing will happen to you before that.  The robot’s already at the windscreen, or leading edge of the crash, unless you’re coming in on an angle, but he is on a surface already.)


Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing. (nope- see above)
The vacuum/ air doesn't make a difference. (yes, it sure does)

Versions 2 and 3 would be redundant here.

Finally I replace the cotton candy with air on the moon.

(You replace the vacuum above the surface with an atmosphere, is what you have to say to go on, but the effect is governed of course by its depth and density,  2 factors not given, so I can’t go on, but you know that the effects would be (relatively speaking), like coming back to Earth.)

Still the same for me and the same for him. (nope)

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship as it lands (crashes into) on the moon is that the retro rockets the moon's (newly acquired) atmosphere force it into me. (dependent on how much air/atmosphere you “put” there.) Same goes for Robby.

That;'s  why I hit the floor of the ship; because it is slowed down by air, but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor. (Of course, but again, the atmosphere that you "put there" has to be a deep atmosphere to have a decelerating effect from space speed.

(Gravity is weight within matter in my theory. Matter only falls, whether in an atmosphere, (pushing air down and aside as it goes,) or in a vacuum, where it free-falls, and there is nothing to push or move aside.)

All I want is a nice simple reason that makes your theory useful; like this.
Under (x,y, and z circumstances) whereas Newtonian gravity (aided by Einstein if needs be) says that proposition A will happen, in fact we know that proposition B will happen.
Since my theory predicts B  which is observed whereas conventional gravity predicts that A will occur my theory is better than the conventional view.

How’s this:

Fact 1 – A “dropped”, (not propelled), weight, free-falls in any one direction in vacuum.
(Meaning nothing “floats” in space). – Matches conventional theory.

Fact 2 - Weight floats in pressurized atmospheres of sealed ships in space vacuum.
(Meaning weight is not “recognized” inside a ship’s artificial atmospheres in space.)
(Evidence = Pascal’s Law.)
- Conventional theory says that weight floats because the whole ship is “falling”)

Fact 3 - People float in pressurized atmospheres of sealed suits in space vacuum.
(Meaning weight is not “recognized” inside sealed atmosphere suits in space.)
(Evidence = Pascal’s Law.)
- Conventional theory says that weight floats because the whole suit is “falling”.

Fact 4 - Weight falls vertically when “dropped” inside natural atmospheres.
(Meaning weight is only “recognized” in natural atmospheres.)
Evidence – On re-entry, atmospheric pressure causes deceleration effects by friction, then weight causes acceleration effects as weight falls. The weight is “pushing air” down (and then aside), as it falls.
Theory - When the moon passes over the waters of our oceans, it also pushes down, bending our atmosphere in its track, and pushing the tides ahead beneath it. (It is theorized here to be an Earth-moon like-pole electrical repulsion, (Coulomb’s Law) that is the cause of tidal actions. Coulomb’s Law is the electrical “equivalent” of Newton’s 3rd Law (of “equal and opposite” reaction), and the Coulomb math matches the Newtonian form. (See Wikipedia)

Conventional (Newtonian) theory says that the moon’s “gravitational attraction”, “pulls” our tides.

 The writer’s theory here disputes that contention, and insists that “gravity” is simply a property of matter that provides the facility whereby matter can be “allowed” to “exhibit” the total of the atomic weights of any elemental composition. This can only happen if the matter is not in the vacuum of space.
Ergo – A “force” is an influence. If gravitational forces existed in the vacuum of space, objects would not be “weightless” in rocket ships. 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? If external pressure, another physical force; (see Pascal’s law),  can completely negate the “influence” of Newton’s Law of Gravitation in a sealed artificial atmosphere that is surrounded by vacuum, then  which of the two would you suppose is a real “force” that controls matter in a practical and constant way, and which must be an imaginary “force”? How many theories of gravity are out there? Are we wasting our time?
A physical and an electrical force can work side by side, but the physical forces are unique in their necessity to exhibit their (externally-exerted) abilities alone. Electricity is a universal phenomenon. Mechanical forces perform “local” functions. This theory attempts to prove that gravity is not a “force”. It is simply an (internal) property of matter, that we call “weight”. It radiates little but argument.


Thanks.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #84 on: 31/05/2007 19:19:55 »
"(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.) "
You are simply wrong about this; things float about weightlessly in the cargo bay of the shuttle; this is the same as my robot friend's leaky ship.

"(nope- no acceleration. You’re already falling at about 17,500 mph since you are in the vacuum)." wrong again; your hypothesis is at odds with the experience of the astronauts and unmanned landers.


"But rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time the forces that we both experience are towards the front of the ship.

(nope – He’s already on the floor, and you just keep floating, because your blind atmosphere (and the ship) doesn’t know anything is different, even with the rockets fired)"
Err? didn't you realise that the retro rockets are just like the brakes in a car; when you stop suddenly you get flung out of your seat.
Now, if you want to tell me that I have never personally been to the moon so my arguments are based on reported knowledge so they are invalid, that's fine. Don't try to tell me that cars don't need seat belts.

Sorry to tell you but since your theory doesn't agree with reality it's wrong.
Theres's nothing more to say except thanks, I have enjoyed the discussion.
Oh, and for the sake of completeness,
thatmadman
"Surely, the observation by Cavendish only shows that the balls nearer twist the balance and only observation proves that.

Could it be equally as valid to say that an outside force of gravity was pushing them together and that the mass of the objects is absorbing or masking some of the gravity thus causing a difference in force?
"
True, the observation also doesn't rule out the notion that the big balls scared away the invisible angels who were pushing the little balls. On the other hand, Occam's razor means it's not the first thing I should worry about.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #85 on: 01/06/2007 02:53:43 »
Hi BC. (You’re in black, me red)

Hold on. What are you running from?  I made a mistake when I screwed up on the retrorocket thing. I admit it. Of course the ship slowed down, and I knew that. Your examples were unnecessarily and overly complex. I’m only human. I blew that one. OK?

In another place, I said: "(Nope) – The robot and his spanners do not float. His ship is not pressurized, so he’s “on the floor” of the ship, free-falling the same as if he was strapped to the outside of the free-falling ship.) "


You replied: “You are simply wrong. Things float weightlessly in the cargo bay of the shuttle, the same as my robot friend's leaky ship.”

May I please ask your internet reference for the site where it says that things float about in the cargo bay, (whether it’s pressurized or not)? I often give you my data sources. I find it extremely difficult to believe that everything in any shuttle’s cargo bay is not lashed down. That could be dangerous. If I can see that and confirm that I’m absolutely wrong about that, I may have a problem and have to re-think really hard. If you don’t have a site in mind, I can ask NASA, but it might take a little time.

Rather than crashing into the moon, we fire retro rockets to slow us down. This time we get pulled out of our seats rather than pushed into them.
(Yes, assuming you’re both flying in front first.)
 

Again, though he's in a vacuum and I'm in air, my robot friend and I experience the same thing. The vacuum/air doesn't make a difference.
(That’s right, because you’re both operating with controlled landing systems, and you’re both strapped in. Also, the controlled landing is engineered for either an atmosphere or for no atmosphere, whichever is known to be at the planned landing site. Both ships will come in the same way.)

Finally I fill the moon with air. Still the same for me and the same for him.

(O.K. Both are controlled landings.)

The reason I hit the windscreen of my ship as it lands on the moon is that the retro rockets or the moon's (newly aquired) atmosphere force it into me. Same goes for Robby.

 (That’s right. But you two only hit your windscreens if you’re both unbelted, and if you land at too high a rate of speed, of course, but you won’t, because the ship’s landing speed is system-controlled to land at the speed required for the specific (moon) landing circumstance – i.e. – into the atmosphere that you have “put there”, or no atmosphere at all. If you hadn’t “put any air there, the ship would still be controlled to land, except through the vacuum, right down to the safe landing.)

OK, if I can put that much air on the moon, that's the same as turning the ship round and coming home. That's why I hit the floor of the ship; not because the ship is suddenly surrounded by air, but because it is slowed down by it, but I carry on moving until I, in turn, am slowed down by hitting the floor.

(That’s right. If you’re unbelted.)

(When there was no atmosphere “put there”, the retrorockets fired all the way down to keep the ships from crashing down hard because the ships were free-falling. The ships had been "positioned" to land in a particular spot. When you added the atmosphere, the ships acted like they would on the Earth. You would be in your seats, and yes, if you were landing in the (suddenly acquired) atmosphere, you would be fine too, as stated above.

Why did you not comment on the closing paragraph of my last blurb? Particularly this:

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?


Thanks

fleep

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #86 on: 02/06/2007 20:12:02 »
An open commentary relating to my disputed theory:

The moon’s escape velocity is 2.38 km/sec., in any direction. Escape velocity from Earth is 11.2 km per second. Obviously, both are holding down with a pervasive force until rockets have achieved these rates of velocity to escape from the two bodies.
In the case of the Earth, there is a heavy atmospheric “load” which must be penetrated before a departing ship enters the vacuum. When a ship is leaving the moon, there is only a thin ground-level atmosphere, and yet, there still is a takeoff “force” which must be overcome. The moon has a thin ground-level atmosphere, and then a ship rises directly into vacuum.

If something fell off a landing module as the ship was high up, while leaving the moon, it would drop at a tremendously high rate of speed, whereas if something falls off the returning shuttle, it first slows when it hits our atmosphere, then proceeds to fall at a “standard” rate of 32 fps/sec., etc. If “gravitational attraction” was at work in both cases, (and if the Earth had no atmosphere), then our own original escape velocity would have been substantially less than 11.2 km/sec., and the return velocity of an object to a mass the size of our planet, vs. that of the moon, would have been extravagantly more swift than an object falling back onto the moon, because of the greater (alleged) “attraction” by our greater mass. (Our standard “rules of falling objects” would not exist.)

Does this not begin to seem like a problem for the mathematical equations that have been “invented” to “explain” gravitational attraction over short and even long distances? The calculations based on mass size variations, orbital considerations, and all the rest do not (necessarily) consider the factor of atmospheres. As we know from our own, atmospheres too, are parts of the mass of any planet, and atmospheres can be substantially different from each other, or not exist at all. But where they exist, they all have weight.

Science might excuse itself by saying that “those calculations are only meant to be approximate”, but how can we even rely on a policy that knows but a pittance of what is really “out there”? Some atmospheres might be 1000 times heavier than our own. The atmosphere on Venus is 1323 PSI, versus our own 14.7 PSI. What things do we not know, and yet we base all our calculations on mass sizes, even if we do not know if a body has an atmosphere? Do some calculations include a prodigiously heavy atmosphere on a very distant body out there, as part of an assumption that it is solid matter? Could some other body have a thin, yet enormously huge and heavy atmosphere whose weight has not been included in the computation of its mass?

Electricity “pierces” atmospheres. Computation of “mass size” would seem to be more logical, using Coulomb’s Law.

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

The following quotation is directly from “Wikipedia”: (Bolding is my own.)

Coulomb's Law, developed in the 1780s by French physicist Charles Augustin de Coulomb, may be stated as follows:

The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point charges is directly proportional to the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges.

This is analogous to Newton's third law of motion in mechanics. The formula to Coulomb's Law is of the same form as Newton's Gravitational Law: The electrical force of one body exerted on the second body is equal to the force exerted by the second body on the first.”================================================================

The “attractive” implication that I see here, is that the “force” attributed to “gravitation”, might itself be, or be a part of what is happening in reality through an electrical facility, such as like-pole repulsion. So, is “gravitation” itself nothing but an unnecessary theory that is “provable” in no other way than by “tailor-made mathematics?”  (There are at least a dozen different theories of gravitation in Wikipedia.)

We know that energy, (an extensive property) is exhibited around bodies in space, and we know that “exertions” between bodies must be real, or Janus and Epimetheus, two moons of Saturn, would certainly collide, rather than trading orbits every 4 years. Is this because of Coulomb’s Law?

We know that our tides are controlled by our moon, but that phenomenon is attributed to a “gravitational attraction”, which shows a number of inconsistencies in how it is alleged to perform. Could the tidal phenomena be obeying Coulomb’s Law; a law of electrical forces, (which equals Newton’s 3rd Law of mechanics), instead of being subject to one of the inconsistent theories of “gravitation”? Coulomb’s Law, like Newton’s 3rd Law, and Pascal’s Law, is real, and provable, and uncontested. They are “LAWS”, unlike Newton’s Theory of Gravitation.

Pressure is an assignable force, while “gravitation” seems to be a theoretical loose cannon that simply blows holes in what seem to be more sensible options. Not only does all the math for calculating the mass of “distant bodies” seem redundant, gravity itself seems more probable to be an “interior bulk property” that only imparts weight to atomic matter. Gravity would be, “weight”.

If the moon’s gravity “pulls” our tides from 238,000 miles away, why did it not ‘pull” things and people against the cabin wall(s) of Apollo 13 as it passed by, only 155 miles from and behind the moon, where it was blocked from the “pull” of the Earth’s  gravity? It didn't even have to "pull" through an atmosphere.

Anyone care to comment?

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #87 on: 02/06/2007 22:11:44 »
"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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #88 on: 03/06/2007 18:42:25 »
Hey BC;
"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.

Well. The first answer doesn't match my thoery, as usual. (Blind, undirected atmospheric pressure in the ship can not "know" where the floor is, so you float in the air.) My theory makes more sense, I believe.

Second: If escape velocity can be "calculated by Newtonian Gravity", then it can also be calculated by using Coulomb.

The third (about the ladder) is nonsense.

The fourth ignores that fact that the moon and the Earth are made of atoms that contain a quantity of charge in every single proton and electron, and if I search the net, I'll find someone who can calculate at least those approximate charges, (using Coulomb's Law formula), which I suspect will be quite significant.

Thanks anyway.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #89 on: 03/06/2007 20:22:09 »
Once again; if reality doesn't match your theory it isn't reality that's wrong.

The escape velocity can indeed be calculated by coulomb's law. For an uncharged body it is zero.

What's nonsense about a ladder? They have been used for a long time.

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.

Did you not read the bit where I pointed this out earlier? When you first introduced Coulomb's law I pointed out that gravity always adds up but electrical forces tend to cancell out.
Why can't you understand that it's the overall charge that matters?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #90 on: 03/06/2007 22:17:54 »


May I see your calculations please, BC? They will help me to make calculations of my own.

Thanks.

Fleep

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #91 on: 04/06/2007 13:24:01 »

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.

Sure. I don't have all the answers, but I don't ignore all the questions that still remain. Theories remain simply "maybes" if closed minds are happy building on the stuff of ancient speculation. Why is it so important to check out everything? How about the possibilities that a different truth could bring to the known directions of global warming? Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Electric_currents_in_space

This site might help you appreciate a little more that Coulomb has more to say than just his "Law", (which is not just theory).

You can't just close your eyes all the time and tell me that I'm wrong about my every observation. We're all in the same boat, and private "mutiny" has never been the way to find a "promised land".

Please excuse my zealous words. Like so many others in this world, I have grandchildren who need a place to live when I am gone.

Thanks

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #92 on: 04/06/2007 20:04:31 »
Coulomb's law, like gravity has the form f =K Q1 Q2 /R^2
Since Q1 and Q2 are both zero (neither the earth nor the moon is charged) the product is zero and neither dividing by the square of the distance notr multiplication by the constant makes a difference, the force is still zero.

OK, next question is how am I so sure they aren't charged?

Well, the space round them, while it's a better vacuum than most that get made here on earth, does contain a small amount of gas. The radiation from the sun ionisess this gas - the dominant products will be electrons and protons. If the moon or earth were negatively charged it would atract the protons until that charge was cancelled out. Similarly, if it were positively charged it would atract the electrons. By now any charge would have been neutralised.
N.B the words Coulomb and Coulomb's do not appear on the page you cited, has it been edited since you postsed?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2007 20:07:30 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #93 on: 04/06/2007 21:17:53 »
"N.B the words Coulomb and Coulomb's do not appear on the page you cited, has it been edited since you postsed?"

No. It's about the magnetosphere, and particularly, I wanted you to see the part about "Electric currents in space". I opened the site from the shortcut on my message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Electric_currents_in_space

Thanks for the info BTW.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #94 on: 05/06/2007 19:36:30 »
The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea; if you have currents then the medium is conductive. If it's conductive then any charge on the earth and moon will leak away.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #95 on: 06/06/2007 14:30:54 »
   BC said – “The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea; if you have currents then the medium is conductive. If it's conductive then any charge on the earth and moon will leak away. The fact that there are currents in space supports my idea.”

I say: “No. The fact that there are currents in space supports MY idea. Your comment about the Earth and moon charges ”leaking away” bears no resemblance to what the experts have to say about electric currents in space.
                                         
Here are some abbreviated excerpts from Wikipedia and NASA sites. Read them yourself if you want the whole complex story.

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

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/

In space, magnetic fields owe their existence solely to electric currents, with no role for ferromagnetism.

Magnetic fields from currents that circulate in the magnetospheric plasma extend the Earth's magnetism much further in space than would be predicted from the Earth's internal field alone. Such currents also determine the field's structure far from Earth.

In everyday applications, electric currents always require a "voltage" to drive them, a sort of electric pressure difference (a pressure known as "electric potential"), similar to the pressure difference that drives water along a pipe.

Not so in the magnetosphere (and in many plasmas) where currents (with one important exception) need no voltage to drive them. Any electric current is the transport of electric charge, but in many cases, such transport is already implied by the structure of the field and the plasma. Viewed from above the northern magnetic pole, ions circulate clockwise, electrons counterclockwise, producing a net circulating clockwise current, known (from its shape) as the ring current. No voltage is needed--the current arises naturally from the motion of the ions and electrons in the magnetic field.

Any such current will modify the magnetic field. The ring current strengthens the field on its outside, helping expand the size of the magnetosphere. At the same time, it weakens the magnetic field in its interior. In a magnetic storm, plasma is added to the ring current, making it temporarily stronger, and the field at Earth is observed to weaken by up to 1-2%.

The deformation of the magnetic field, and the flow of electric currents in it are intimately linked, making it often hard to label one as cause and the other as effect. Frequently (as in the magnetopause and the magnetotail) it is intuitively more useful to regard the distribution and flow of plasma as the primary effect, producing the observed magnetic structure, with the associated electric currents just one feature of those structures, more of a consistency requirement of the magnetic structure.

As noted, one exception (at least) exists, a case where voltages do drive currents. That happens with Birkeland currents, which flow from distant space into the near-polar ionosphere, continue at least some distance in the ionosphere, and then return to space. (Part of the current then detours and leaves Earth again along field lines on the morning side, flows across midnight as part of the ring current, then comes back to the ionosphere along field lines on the evening side and rejoins the pattern.) The full circuit of those currents, under various conditions, is still under debate.

Because the ionosphere is an ohmic conductor of sorts, such flow will heat it up. It will also give rise to secondary Hall currents, and accelerate magnetospheric particles--electrons in the arcs of the polar aurora, and singly-ionized oxygen ions (O+) which contribute to the ring current.
=======================================================
NASA says: The interaction between the solar wind and the plasma of the magnetosphere acts like an electric generator, creating electric fields deep inside the magnetosphere. These fields in turn give rise to a general circulation of the plasma within the magnetosphere and accelerate some electrons and ions to higher energies.
During periods of gusty solar wind, powerful magnetic storms in space near the Earth cause vivid auroras, radio and television static, power blackouts, navigation problems for ships and airplanes with magnetic compasses, and damage to satellites and spacecraft. Events on the Sun and in the magnetosphere can also trigger changes in the electrical and chemical properties of the atmosphere, the ozone layer, and high-altitude temperatures and wind patterns.
=================================================
Now I ask you: If science is still debating the functions of the magnetosphere, (and even the Van Allen Belts), why would anyone absolutely stick to the old guns and be happy with a theory that’s over 320 years old, and knew nothing of solar wind, the magnetosphere, Birkeland currents, or anything else that makes more sense than “the THEORY of gravitational attraction”, for which a bunch of math was created? The magnetosphere is a functionally independent electric pressure facility that affects the Earth, and even its tides. You can “watch it at work” in the northern skies” at night. It’s real. We know many things about it. It’s time we took it seriously.

Unless somebody else in this forum wants to take up the ball and get serious about this important possibility, I guess I’ll be looking elsewhere. Any last takers?

If not, thank you all for viewing and contributing to these exchanges. I learned a lot from a couple of you. Special thanks to Batroost and to the site staff.

I have other theories in mind, and I might be back somtime again.

fleep

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #96 on: 06/06/2007 19:50:13 »
"In space, magnetic fields owe their existence solely to electric currents, with no role for ferromagnetism."
So what? the earth's magnetic field isn't due to ferromagnetism either; it too is due to circulating electric currents.
I think that if you want to get anyone to continue this discussion you will need to find some concrete evidence that the theory that has, as you say, stood 320 years of testing, is wrong in some way.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #97 on: 06/06/2007 21:58:43 »
Hi again fleep,

Measurements have shown that there is a large variation in magnetic fields possessed by bodies within the solar system e.g, Earth's is pretty strong compared to Venus' etc...

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that magnetic fields of two planets of similar mass (and both with significant atmospeheres) should be so very different yet they have similar gravities? Or put another way, doesn't this make a link between magnetic/electric fields and gravity seem a bit unlikely?

- I've picked on Venus/Earth as they are similar in size, but there are very many other bodies with measured magnetic fields; with no foolproof correlation with size.

Cheers,

Batroost
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

*

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #98 on: 07/06/2007 18:02:14 »
Hi to Batroost and BC:

My model of Earth’s atmosphere (in message 86419), was finally well received by Batroost, who called it “elegant”, (in message 86490). I had to believe that I had (at least one known) acceptance of the model and what it conveyed. Here is the model again:
===============================================================
Purpose of this model – Defining objects’ fall behaviour through our atmosphere.

“It was Science that "created" a Datum area and weight (14.7 Lbs. per square inch), to satisfy a globally comparative need for a baseline. I am simply rising up from that "any one square inch" in a vertical column of the appropriate size, with an entire "Datum column" that extends up to the Karman Line, to be used for comparison(s).

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 a 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 and identically at their own altitudes in all directions.
Our 1 inch cube is dropped from the Karman Line to reach 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. (One pound now had to be deleted from the atmosphere's total weight, so it was removed from my model's column.

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.”
=========================================================

The point of the atmospheric model was to clear the way for mutual agreement of how a falling object acts in our atmosphere. No rejection of this model was posted by anyone.

=========================================================
Purpose of following ‘rules” – To separate falling behaviours - space and Earth.

(My own) Rules of Falling Objects: (Clarified) -

Rule 1 - Released objects in space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.
Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float.

The foregoing "rules" are indisputable FACTS:

Under Rule 1, objects simply fall, whether in open vacuum or in open space. If they are in open space, they fall in the direction of first impetus. If they are engineered into a designed orbit, they fall in that repetitive orbit. They do not hang suspended in space.

If they are on the Earth, or in an atmosphere on any planet, (or other body that has an atmosphere), they fall straight down, unless they are impelled into an atmosphere at a high rate of speed, in which case they can come in on an angle.

Under Rule 2, if “falling through space” was all that was needed for objects to float in the air inside space ships, then Rule 2 would be violating Rule 1. That would break a fundamental rule of logic since each set of circumstances are true, so a change in any factor of either circumstance cannot fit within the other rule.


The Rule 2 astronauts float in the air inside the shuttle”, and thus do not comply with
Rule 1.

On Earth, the natural atmosphere works even inside a contained pressure – objects sink/fall downwards; as a plastic mixer ball in a pressurized spray paint, or a bolt left inside a pressure tank or a vacuum tank must do.)

These “rules”, while contested and re-explained, did not seem to be condemned or rejected. The argument just went astray, but logic that proves itself is logical.


The point of the “Rules” was to introduce this contention within my theory:
(My contention is that astronauts float in sealed ships because the surrounding blind pressure has no way to find a direction, or to “locate a floor” upon which to set them down. (Pascal’s Law is the explanation for contained pressure.) Ergo – Pressurized chambers in space work differently than they do on Earth.
Ergo – Incidences of falling objects should behave the same across the universe under “Newtonian Gravitational Attraction”, but they do not.
Ergo – The behaviour of “weight” complies with Newton’s 1st,  2nd, and 3rd  Laws.

My theory disputes nothing except the THEORY of “Gravitational attraction”, which in itself, seems to violate Newton’s own 1st Law, since “objects at rest” are alleged to be able to move towards each other over some frame of time, by “gravitational attraction”. Do “objects at rest remain at rest”, or do they not, when we know the 1st Law to be true)?

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

Purpose of the “Coulomb’s Law” consideration (introduced at message 91508).

In the light of the foregoing question about whether or not gravitation is real, my theory looks for other possible causes for things like tidal motion. The introduction of Coulomb and the magnetosphere are meant to open another window of possibility.

The mention of independent electrical forces in my message 95320 were simply swept aside in the only two responses posted.

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

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/

If the sites were thoroughly examined, it can be seen that independent spatially-formed electrical pressures being exerted upon bodies like the Earth and the moon could be a possibility, completely independent from any connection to our own or the moon’s magnetism. The moon always shows us only the face where its magnetism is the strongest. I theorize that it passes off a continent while it is “connected” to us through an isolated repulsive “like-pole” effect by the magnetosphere, and our atmosphere is depressed by 16 percent as the moon begins to seem that it “pull” our tides. What could very well be happening is that the moon’s passage, through the courtesy of the magnetosphere, is actually “pushing” our tides. I contend that an independently space-based repulsive circuit in the magnetosphere is doing what has long been credited to the one Newtonian “Law” (of gravitation), that seems to violate his own proven 1st Law of Motion.

Do whatever you like with this. It’s only a theory.

Thanks

fleep




*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #99 on: 07/06/2007 19:16:59 »
"Rule 1 - Released objects in space vacuum or in natural atmosphere, must free-fall.
Rule 2 - Loose objects in a sealed ship's atmosphere in space, must float.

The foregoing "rules" are indisputable FACTS:"
Sorry, but I dispute rule 2.
The things inside a ship that seem to be floating are in fact, in free fall
It's just that , like the ship they fall past the earth because they are in orbit or on a balistic trajectory. Since they and the ship fall along the same path they "float" from the point of view of the ship's occupants, but they are moving from the point of view of someone here on earth. Specifically, they are accelerating towards the earth at exactly the rate expected from gravitation, if they are near the eath's surface then they are accelerating towards the earth at near 9.8 m/sec/sec.
Rule 1 says everything in the eath's atmosphere falls. I hold that everything outside it falls too. Your rule 2 reflects the fact  that ships are usually in orbit.
That eans that everything whether it's in a ship, a vacuum or the atmosphere falls.
That's also the principle of univesal gravitation.
Everything falls.
Please disregard all previous signatures.