[Kenyonm]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

The earth is travelling at a huge speed,it's mass is huge compared to your salelite. If it stopped rotating, the effect would be to stretch it out akin to the tail on a comet, the mass would stretch. Pull a balloon through water and see what happens. Now if possible do it again but with the balloon spinning and it would stay round, the forces are evenned out.

A gyroscope works to stablise an object connected to it. The Earth is a huge gyroscope which makes it massively stable. Without the rotation it would be massively unstable.

Regards

Mike

Regards

Mike

Thebox

The spinning ball changes shape as the loop of material at the centre is travelling faster than the pole which is stationary, just a rotating dot in space.
The material in the centre has a centripedial acceleration pulling out. Because the top of the ball is connected to it, this acceleration occurs in lesser and lesser amounts to the top of the ball when it is zero. The top moves down as the ball fattens and as it is full of gas it's shape is kept uniform.

The ground is a solid so the ball cannot pass through it. If it wasn't solid the ball would fall through it and keep falling until the surrounding material was of the same density as the ball. The ball would overshoot this point then rise back to it. There, it would feel no gravity.

Imagine a world of just water and wood. The wood would float on the water as it is less dense. After a long time, the wood would become waterlogged. At this point, the air that was trapped in the wood, making it less dense than water would have escaped and have been replaced by water. The wood would then have a similar density to water
and would fall slowly down to the depths where the water pressure increased the density of the water to that of the waterlogged wood.

Everything has a density level where it could come to rest and feel no gravity. In engineering a stone on the ground has no potential energy, only when it is raised away from its natural density level does a sorting force arise which in turn creates an acceleration and a potential energy as a result.

Regards

Mike
 

[alancalverd]

I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory. Does nobody stay awake in science lessons these days?

[PmbPhy]

My theory for gravity is the speed of light is ...

You're not allowed to post your personal theories in this particular sub forum. You have to post it in the New Theories sub forum.

[PmbPhy]

I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory. Does nobody stay awake in science lessons these days?

If you think that it's bad here then take a gander at https://www.physforum.com/index.php

[Colin2B]

I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory...

The confusion between gravity and buoyancy seems very common, but this poster adds in a wide range of misunderstandings including gyroscopic effects.
I thought of responding but found it hard to decide which of the many to address first.

PS note to Mike Kenyonm.
g is not constant over the surface of the earth nor at heights above the earth. The value of g changes with height, but even at 100 miles up it is close to that on earth. 'Zero gravity' in spacecraft circling earth is a misunderstanding of free fall.
All objects on earth experience the force of gravity as described by Newton, but this can be balanced by buoyancy and air resistance.
Look up buoyancy and Archimedes principle to understand these.

[Kenyonm]

Hello Colin


Buoyancy is what we use to describe terms in boats, displacement etc.

Water is just another medium, it has three states ice, liquid water, water vapour and steam.

It also has surface tensions that can support small insects and pollen etc.

What I am talking about applies to any 2 medium's  or to two solid object's, it doesn't matter if it is a solid, liquid or a gas, they all behave the same in terms of gravity.

A simple test, a lump of wood will float on water as it has a density less than water. The wood is said to be buoyant.

A stone will fall through the water but not at 9.81 m/s squared.
A steel ball will fall also, again as it is denser than the water.

Submarines are hollow sealed tubes so they float as their net density is less than the water. They take onboard water to be able to have a net density greater than water in order to submerge. Once at the required depth they blow the tanks a little to balance the net density to that of water.

This is exactly how a fishes swim bladder works. This is full of air, the fish exhales just enough to have the same net density as the water.

The people in the submarine feel gravity because there is air above them and a steel floor beneath them preventing them from moving down into the water in which they would have a very similar density. The potential difference between the densities is akin to a Voltage in electronics. Current can only flow if it is allowed to move. The steel floor represents a infinite resistor allowing no flow. As the potential difference is there, there is a constant force trying to move the higher density object through the floor to its final destination.

Upside down, if you create a steel platform under water and some wooden statues of people on it or yourself with a rubber ring and arm bands on. You and the statues can stand up,on the upside down platform. the wood and yourself will be pushed onto the platform constantly as you and the wood need to move through it to the surface of the water. The right way up now can you see that we are being pushed onto solid ground by a sorting force trying to move us through it constantly to our natural density level, in the water.

This is the source of gravity.


A boat made of plastic is a wide container of air, at the top rim of the boat this is the boundary of the boat. It's net density includes the air up to that boundary.

The air makes to boat float as it less dense than the water. The same is true of ships made of steel. Once they are holed the boat sinks as the water pressure is greater than the air pressure. Large ships weigh many tons but still float due to their net density being less than water. They are full of air inside.

g, I agree does change with height. So at 100 miles up the air density is very low so it's abilty to resist movement is low. This is unless the object is spacecraft entering the atmosphere at great speed. 

As you know, astronauts train in water as it is the nearest thing available with closely matched densities to the micro gravity of space. The further you travel away from the Earth, the more the moon and the other planets try to sort your spacecraft towards their surfaces. This cancels out some of the sorting action of the earths density field. Further out you begin to be pulled in all directions creating the weightless.

I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.


Thank you for your feedback also,

Regards

Mike Kenyon

Managing Director MKForce Ltd

 
 

 

[MolonLabe]

What I am talking about applies to any 2 medium's  or to two solid object's,

You claim to be the managing director of a company, yet you can't even formulate the plural of a noun. That's two media and two objects by the way.

A stone will fall through the water but not at 9.81 m/s squared.

Nor can you differentiate between a speed and an acceleration

The potential difference between the densities is akin to a Voltage in electronics. Current can only flow if it is allowed to move. The steel floor represents a infinite resistor allowing no flow. As the potential difference is there, there is a constant force trying to move the higher density object through the floor to its final destination.
 

Totally meaningless

I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.

Regards

Mike Kenyon

Managing Director MKForce Ltd

Well, these things are perfectly understood by those who have studied primary school physics, and your thirst for knowledge will enable you to do the same. Excellent. Keep at it.

[jeffreyH]

All that can actually be said of gravitation is that the force of gravity affects the vector direction and momentum of a particle. No one can yet say how. The equations may be complex but this is what it ultimately boils down to.

[Kenyonm]

I saw someone on here say WHY ask what causes Gravity, can't we just accept it is? Well It would certainly help a lot to find a way to create gravity on a long range spacecraft (simulating it using centrifugal force is not the same thing). OR to learn how to cancel it on earth to fly without aerodynamic forces or lighter then air craft. Most of the fuel to launch a space craft is used just to break it out of earths gravitational pull imagine if we could simply turn off the earths effect on the spacecraft at will? There are many reasons to ask What causes gravity. It seems to me most of what we know about gravity is the study of it's effects not it's cause. I am not a Expert in anyway but it does not take a expert to understand solving this question and then to make practical use from that would be a astronomically HUGE scientific breakthrough. Everything else is hypothesis until you can not only explain your hypothesis but actually prove it with practical application. I also know the way it is discussed in schools (Meaning K-12 education text books) gives the impression Newton Understood Gravity what he did was come up with mathematical formulas that explained the effects of gravity on mass and motion. (not to say that was not huge and quite brilliant especially when you consider how long ago he came up with those formulas and we still use them today) My fear it is highly likely that it is a force SO dependent on mass that to duplicate the gravity of earth in a space craft that works the same as gravity on earth would require a spacecraft that had the the same mass of the earth.  In the end it may just be one of those laws of physics you just can not change even if we did fully understand it. But that does not mean we should not continue to try or ask why. Asking why is what science is all about. (To those more educated then I please be kind as I know I may be way off)

Hello

We wouldn't be anywhere without Netwons great steps forward. He didn't try to understand the cause of gravity by his own admission. It's up to us to do that now. Any new theory of the cause of gravity must still fit within the known and proved understandings. My theory does just that. It just tries to explain the cause of g and put an equation together for it, not just to accept it as a virtual constant and build equations around it.

A spacecraft would have to be super inversed dense field, the opposite of a black hole to deflect gravity.

Regards

Mike

[jeffreyH]

You didn't actually take me seriously did you?

[Colin2B]

I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.

I'm sure that might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we do not see eye to eye on this, as nothing you have written either explains or describes gravity.

[GoC]

The cause of gravity has a simple explanation. Entropy of mass. Mass causes the dilation of space (curved space). This is observed in galaxies as lensing. So dilation of space by mass is an observed phenomenon. In the center of mass is the most dilated space as observed by clock tick rates being the slowest tick rate position on a planet. Red shifted light in GR is considered to be less energy. Red shift is the greatest in the gravitational center of a planet. So we can conclude more dilated space suggests a less energy position in space as an observation. If we consider dilation of space also dilates mass that occupies that space we can understand why light and mechanical clocks both slow equally with greater distances of light and the electron to travel to create physics the same in every frame.

In that light we can consider energy being dilated (red shifted light being produced in more dilated space). Now for the potential energy as an attractive force of entropy. We can now follow gravity as simply mass being attracted to a more dilated position in space of less energy. in Relativity light bends away from and curves around dilated space while mass is attracted to a more dilated space position. Einstein appears to be correct in dilation (curvature) of space is the cause of gravity.

To give up on the cause of physics is very unscientific. It may always remain a subjective interpretation of cause but explanations need to be consistent with observations.

[Kenyonm]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.

This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass.  In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.

If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,

so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?

What is interesting about the spin of the earth, is this spin generates a centrifugal force vector that goes in the opposite direction of the gravitational force vector. If the earth spun fast enough and stayed together we would be propelled into space. This is not called antigravity, but the force vector from the spin points in the same direction as would anti-gravity.

What this suggests is the gravitational force, like all the other forces, gives off some form of energy, when the potential lowers, that can cause a countering action/reaction in other matter.

As an analogy, if the EM force caused an electron to fall one energy level, the energy given off, can cause another electron to gain that potential. If a lot of electrons where lowering potential, but the countering re-absorption was not 100% efficient, the result would be only partial action/reaction. In the case of gravity, the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, but this appears to only partially go into the spin, that mathematically cancels only some of the gravity force vector.

Hello

If the Earth did not spin we would not have any time? Days on the light side would last forever and nights on the dark side would last forever.
I'm sure that if it wasn't rotating we would feel pulls on the Earth from the billions of stars in our galaxy. This would make the Earth shake a little.
We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it. Just like a bicycle which stablises once it is moving due the the wheels rotating exept on a huge globe. Imagine how stable a wheel would be the size of the earths diameter, This is what keeps the Earth so beautifully still.

Regards

Mike

[MolonLabe]

If the Earth did not spin we would not have any time? Days on the light side would last forever and nights on the dark side would last forever.

I don't think so. If it didn't spin we would have days and nights lasting 6 months. Think of the moon. As for the rest, why on Earth (*giggle*) would you think that a spin makes any difference to the gravitational effect of other stars in the galaxy?

[guest39538]

what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??

Hi Hamza, the cause/mechanism of gravity is presently not known although there is several ideas about what causes gravity.

Spin is regarded as different to gravity, although nothing says this is not the cause at the present, but the physics for gravity does not really fit for being spin.

Presently it is suggested there is a Gravitron, some sort of ''virtual'' particle that transmits from mass to mass.

And thats about it so far.

[GoC]

If you are thinking about spin as a centrifugal type of gravity the spin would actually reduce attraction to the center of the Earth not cause it.

Its interesting that mass dilates (curves) space with dilation following the inverse square law equal to the inverse square of gravity attraction. Centrifugal is a curve through space where mass appears to be directed to a straight line. Each system will cause a scale to register what we describe as weight.

[liquidspacetime]

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass.

I call this mass the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

[Colin2B]

We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it. Just like a bicycle which stablises once it is moving due the the wheels rotating exept on a huge globe. Imagine how stable a wheel would be the size of the earths diameter, This is what keeps the Earth so beautifully still.

The bicycle is unstable because a strong gravity is trying to pull it onto the ground. The earth has no such significant forces acting on it and does not need a spin, nor would it fall apart without one, nor smear like a comet.
You need to have a serious rethink of all of your ideas.

[alancalverd]

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Not true. Any medium, moving in any direction, would have altered the null result of at least one of the hundreds of repeat experiments that are done every year in undergraduate physics classes.

We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it.

I wouldn't have described a body spinning about its axis at 1000 mph, orbiting around the sun at a zillion miles a year, and hurtling away from other galaxies at near-light speed, as "very still". But then I'm a pedantic old physicist. 

[liquidspacetime]

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Not true. Any medium, moving in any direction, would have altered the null result of at least one of the hundreds of repeat experiments that are done every year in undergraduate physics classes.

Watch the following video starting at the 0:46 mark to see the state of displacement of the aether. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE if the video does not appear below)

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

""Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."

Honey has mass and so does the aether.

What is described as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

The aether is relativistic. Meaning, everything is with respect to it. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists. This is why the speed of light is always determined to c.