Yes, but it's not necessarily easy to correctly measure 1kg - an old fashioned set of scales with weights will work, however. Not sure if modern scales actually measure force or mass...Heiwa wrote:Sorry - 1 kg of gold is the same anywhere, Narvik, Quito, Mars, Moon and has the same mass as the platinum-iridium 1 kg prototype at Paris that can be used to compare masses.
Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Hi Heiwa.
Trying to envisage this kind of scenario I find it quite helpful to look at things in the extreme.
In this case, if we imagine Earth’s supposed rotation speeded up about 17 times so it’s completing a revolution once every 1.4 hours or so rather than 24 then everything at the equator that isn’t tethered down will become ‘weightless’ and begin to float just like the asstronots not aboard the ISS, whereas any north or south polar expeditions will not notice the slightest difference.
Now, I do agree with you that just like the Kg standard held in Paris our intrepid asstronots ‘mass’ would remain absolutely unaltered as this ‘weightlessness’ is simply the result of centripetal acceleration canceling out the effects of Earth's gravity (by which the Kilogram is measured).
You got me thinking again here though Heiwa and I admit to having been a little disingenuous with my potty mouthed story.
Obviously, a simple balance would always work... take the Paris standard on one end of a balanced beam and golden goods on the other and the equivalence will always remain the same, no matter latitudinal location and of course any ‘scale’ can be simply ‘zeroed' to take into account its physical environment, so probably no need for GMW...phew! Ah, ok, but like I said, any market trader wishing to sell perfectly standardised measures would still be pissing around with that zero dial every minute of the day due to our near circular path around the Sun!
Perhaps a different scenario might be more applicable. With a spinning, orbiting world, what location on Earth and at what time would be best to attempt a new high jump, long jump, shoot the furthest arrow, fire the longest shot Guinness book of world records be? My choice would be the equator at exactly the time my rotational position is furthest from the Sun, though it seems that this has no correlation whatsoever to the actual record books or noted (unlike altitude or windspeed) as any kind of advantage, yet these advantages could easily be mathematically accounted for and yet they are not. I wonder why.
Trying to envisage this kind of scenario I find it quite helpful to look at things in the extreme.
In this case, if we imagine Earth’s supposed rotation speeded up about 17 times so it’s completing a revolution once every 1.4 hours or so rather than 24 then everything at the equator that isn’t tethered down will become ‘weightless’ and begin to float just like the asstronots not aboard the ISS, whereas any north or south polar expeditions will not notice the slightest difference.
Now, I do agree with you that just like the Kg standard held in Paris our intrepid asstronots ‘mass’ would remain absolutely unaltered as this ‘weightlessness’ is simply the result of centripetal acceleration canceling out the effects of Earth's gravity (by which the Kilogram is measured).
You got me thinking again here though Heiwa and I admit to having been a little disingenuous with my potty mouthed story.
Obviously, a simple balance would always work... take the Paris standard on one end of a balanced beam and golden goods on the other and the equivalence will always remain the same, no matter latitudinal location and of course any ‘scale’ can be simply ‘zeroed' to take into account its physical environment, so probably no need for GMW...phew! Ah, ok, but like I said, any market trader wishing to sell perfectly standardised measures would still be pissing around with that zero dial every minute of the day due to our near circular path around the Sun!
Perhaps a different scenario might be more applicable. With a spinning, orbiting world, what location on Earth and at what time would be best to attempt a new high jump, long jump, shoot the furthest arrow, fire the longest shot Guinness book of world records be? My choice would be the equator at exactly the time my rotational position is furthest from the Sun, though it seems that this has no correlation whatsoever to the actual record books or noted (unlike altitude or windspeed) as any kind of advantage, yet these advantages could easily be mathematically accounted for and yet they are not. I wonder why.
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Alright, here I go. I am a big fat raccoon on a tiny limb here but maybe this is a simple question: maybe gravity is not the same type of force as the rotation of the Earth, and maybe we don't understand how gravity actually works.
Example: does gravity pull uniformly, or does it only pull in opposition to the spinning force? If that's too crazy to imagine, let me try approaching this question a different way. So while the Earth does have an expansion effect because of its rotation, it is nothing compared to the immense gravity. That's one idea. Here's another guess out of left field: what if planetary bodies, regardless of size, tend to have somewhat uniform gravity because gravity is actually a sort of sucking force that gathers mass to it and is not, in fact, as directly connected with mass as they've calculated? And what's more, this "gravity" sort of "trumps" conventional physics and overpowers them like a shield, similar to the way an electric field gathers a space of electrical activity. Perhaps wherever gravity is, conventional forces lose out. Perhaps the 11-dimensional (or whatever) string theory is on to something and when the tiny particles change their function from conventional physics to gravity physics, the conventional physics simply stop putting up a fight. In other words, the incredible forces of spinning are moot because the particals are not "registering" that kind of force. They are only "listening" for gravity, and that is why things don't go flying off the Earth and people are not compressed into pools of slime at the poles.
Does a battleship have gravity that draws things to it? Does a top-heavy tower like the Munich Olympic tower or the Seattle tower? If all mass generally has this mysterious gravity, can we measure it, the denser an object is? Can we experiment by creating an enormous block of lead and measuring the gravity of the block by seeing at what rate particles are pulled toward it?
This is all to excuse the official belief that the Earth is rotating as fast as they say. If it is not, and the Earth is only rotating at the exact speed we are seeing a stationary moon "move" across the sky, then we still must account for the fact that the observable stars and planets move differently. As shown in videos accounting for their measured observation for millennia, their orbits if around the Earth would be kinda wild spirograph patterns with loop-di-loops and back tracking orbits. A separate discussion perhaps. Sorry for the scattered reply - just musing.
Example: does gravity pull uniformly, or does it only pull in opposition to the spinning force? If that's too crazy to imagine, let me try approaching this question a different way. So while the Earth does have an expansion effect because of its rotation, it is nothing compared to the immense gravity. That's one idea. Here's another guess out of left field: what if planetary bodies, regardless of size, tend to have somewhat uniform gravity because gravity is actually a sort of sucking force that gathers mass to it and is not, in fact, as directly connected with mass as they've calculated? And what's more, this "gravity" sort of "trumps" conventional physics and overpowers them like a shield, similar to the way an electric field gathers a space of electrical activity. Perhaps wherever gravity is, conventional forces lose out. Perhaps the 11-dimensional (or whatever) string theory is on to something and when the tiny particles change their function from conventional physics to gravity physics, the conventional physics simply stop putting up a fight. In other words, the incredible forces of spinning are moot because the particals are not "registering" that kind of force. They are only "listening" for gravity, and that is why things don't go flying off the Earth and people are not compressed into pools of slime at the poles.
Does a battleship have gravity that draws things to it? Does a top-heavy tower like the Munich Olympic tower or the Seattle tower? If all mass generally has this mysterious gravity, can we measure it, the denser an object is? Can we experiment by creating an enormous block of lead and measuring the gravity of the block by seeing at what rate particles are pulled toward it?
This is all to excuse the official belief that the Earth is rotating as fast as they say. If it is not, and the Earth is only rotating at the exact speed we are seeing a stationary moon "move" across the sky, then we still must account for the fact that the observable stars and planets move differently. As shown in videos accounting for their measured observation for millennia, their orbits if around the Earth would be kinda wild spirograph patterns with loop-di-loops and back tracking orbits. A separate discussion perhaps. Sorry for the scattered reply - just musing.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
It is very simple:
Mass is a measure of the amount of material in an object, being directly related to the number and type of atoms present in the object. Mass does not change with the object’s position, movement or alteration of its shape, unless material is added or removed. The unit of mass is kilogram (kg).
Force is a measure of the amount of push or pull upon an object. Force may be in contact with the object or act on the object at a distance. The unit of force is Newton (N).
Example: A force of 1 N applied to an object with mass 1 kg will accelerate the object at 1 m/s². Meter (m) is the unit of distance and second (s) is the unit of time.
Gravity apparently is a force pulling objects together. There are many other, different forces.
Mass is a measure of the amount of material in an object, being directly related to the number and type of atoms present in the object. Mass does not change with the object’s position, movement or alteration of its shape, unless material is added or removed. The unit of mass is kilogram (kg).
Force is a measure of the amount of push or pull upon an object. Force may be in contact with the object or act on the object at a distance. The unit of force is Newton (N).
Example: A force of 1 N applied to an object with mass 1 kg will accelerate the object at 1 m/s². Meter (m) is the unit of distance and second (s) is the unit of time.
Gravity apparently is a force pulling objects together. There are many other, different forces.
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
It sounds simple at first, but I am still having trouble getting around the problem presented by lux and scud.
If the Centripetal (circular motion) force is what keeps all and sundry standing upright instead of toppling over from "encountering" the air (which is actually traveling with them through the vacuum) then the spin of the Earth, if it's spinning at such and such meters per second, must have some effect on the Earthly-object's resistance to gravity's influence, and a position at either pole would cause greater net "weight" - more pressure on the human.
Yes there may be less air - the air bubble around Earth being more of an ovoid shape - which would in turn create less air pressure on the person at a pole, but it wouldn't be so dramatic as the difference between simply standing at a pole versus standing at an equator. It must be true that one weighs less at the equator, yes? I think I've heard that before, whether it's true or false.
If the Centripetal (circular motion) force is what keeps all and sundry standing upright instead of toppling over from "encountering" the air (which is actually traveling with them through the vacuum) then the spin of the Earth, if it's spinning at such and such meters per second, must have some effect on the Earthly-object's resistance to gravity's influence, and a position at either pole would cause greater net "weight" - more pressure on the human.
Yes there may be less air - the air bubble around Earth being more of an ovoid shape - which would in turn create less air pressure on the person at a pole, but it wouldn't be so dramatic as the difference between simply standing at a pole versus standing at an equator. It must be true that one weighs less at the equator, yes? I think I've heard that before, whether it's true or false.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I think I will go to Ecuador, buy some gold, then travel to Fairbanks and sell it.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Some people have problems with gravity, i.e. that a mass can remotely apply a force on another mass, e.g. that the Moon and Sun (and the Universe) apply a force on sea water on the surface of the rotating around itself and circulating around the Sun Earth causing ebb and tide. The Moon also applies a force the air on top of the surface of the rotating Earth causing turbulence there but it is hardly noticed. Evidently everything on Earth also applies force on everything on the Moon but the result is not a sudden collision for reasons I will not explain here except that, luckily, there is almost equilibrium all the time. And a mass of 1 kg is all the time everywhere 1 kg.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Yes Hoi, that's what we're talking about all the time. The mass is the same, but the force is reduced, so you'd feel lighter.hoi.polloi wrote:It must be true that one weighs less at the equator, yes? I think I've heard that before, whether it's true or false.
Some geocentrists claim, that the same effect could be caused by a hollow (star) sphere rotating around a stationary earth. So far I couldn't figure out why they think so.
On a side note...the gravity has some astounding properties. I read an article on a site (the one of the guy who claims the ISS appears as a round object in all telescopes) where it is stated that the formula for gravity must be wrong, because it can't be that gravity depends only from distance and mass, but not from the size of an object. Well it's true that the formula only applies to perfectly spherical objects, but then it is correct. I convinced myself by writing a computer program, which approximates one large sphere (e.g. earth-like size and mass) by hundreds of thousands of small spheres and then calculates the sum of gravity of an object outside caused by all the small spheres - it's always exactly the same as the gravity you'd get from the one large sphere. So, if you imagine that earth suddenly shrinks to half its size, the gravity applied to your current position (now probably 3000km above the surface ) remains the same as before.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Has it ever been demonstrated that gravity is a force inherent in all matter? That is, has there ever been a demonstration of one object attracting another?
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Hmm...sorry chaps. Here's the link again.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivBs0DAL7Wo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivBs0DAL7Wo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivBs0DAL7Wo
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Try a pendulum, i.e. a mass object X hanging in a string with no mass and attached to ... the ceiling above you. Push object X to the side and watch! Object X swings back and then back again and again hanging from your ceiling. What magic, invisible, mysterious force Z is swinging object X and what object Y, if any, is contributing to the swinging? Is object Y the floor below you? Or something else below your floor? Something in the cellar? Etc. This Italian Gallileo Gallilei managed to explain it 400 years ago. You cannot beat GG!lux wrote:... has there ever been a demonstration of one object attracting another?
Or just throw up object X in the air and watch where it ends up!
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
^ No, I mean has there been a demonstration of gravity other than Earth's? Where two objects (neither of them Earth or any other planetary body) are shown to attract each other?
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I would think so. Haven't looked it up yet, but these kind of experiments MUST have been done in order to arrive at the formula and the gravity constant. And I also think everything else just follows. Like the mass of the earth, which would be hard to estimate otherwise.lux wrote:^ No, I mean has there been a demonstration of gravity other than Earth's? Where two objects (neither of them Earth or any other planetary body) are shown to attract each other?
That is not to say that this theory and model are necessarily correct. Some people claim that gravity is a "push" force rather than a "pull" force, at least gravity on earth. It may be that the formula is only correct in our current frame of experience, i.e. under earthly conditions. Nobody can know for sure.
I personally think that gravity is very closely related to magnetism and electromagnetic waves (including light) in general. But it certainly remains a riddle in many aspects, especially the true origin of that "force".
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
The formulas could have come from observation of planetary bodies.
I'd like to know if anyone has demonstrated a non-planetary object attracting another non-planetary object.
I'd like to know if anyone has demonstrated a non-planetary object attracting another non-planetary object.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I don't think so. You may be able to estimate the distance or even the diameter of a planetary body, but not it's mass, which would be a prerequisite for developing a gravity formula. I'm pretty sure that the mass estimations are derived from the assumed distances and the gravity formula.lux wrote:The formulas could have come from observation of planetary bodies.
Did you already try a google search on the topic?