What is Gravity?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby pov603 on February 14th, 2016, 12:00 pm

simonshack wrote:
pov603 wrote:I thought the biggest vacuum chamber in the world was between Brian Cox's ears?...


Unfortunately, it seems that sound waves can actually propagate out of that particular vacuum chamber ... :P


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EJ8r9Rhfw8


(Hat tip to my pen friend Vinny - who sent me the link to this priceless, breakfast-table 'Coxplanation' of gravitational waves)


Wow, that is actually 'cringeable'. I almost felt embarrassed for him.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 692
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby JLapage on February 14th, 2016, 7:52 pm

Replying to painterman's post of February 14th, 2016, 5:35 am ,

You stated with confidence that "Whenever this force has been sought between known masses in the lab, it has been found as expected". Whenever it was measured in the lab (giving the impression that you had done so yourself, or that you could easily cite such examples) the result was always as expected. Now in your reply you say "there are no experiments known to me in which the predicted force of gravity was looked for and not found." So you changed from measuring the force between two bodies of any mass to a body and earth? But this is assuming that we know the mass of the earth. To calculate the mass of the earth we are to accept and use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is itself a theory that does not hold too well under close scrutiny (see below).

Actually not, astronauts would also experience the force of gravity. The theory is that gravity manifests itself to astronauts as the centripetal force of their circular orbit. If there was no gravity pulling the astronauts down, they would simply fly off into space in a straight line. That a ship in space - or any object anywhere - moves in a circular path requires a force, in this case it's gravity.

That is the standard explanation given and generally accepted when people really believed (and apparently some still do believe) in the theories of Newton. Newton's thought experiment was that the moon traveled in fixed circular orbits around the earth. The force (F) holding the moon in its orbit(s) is given by his Law of Universal Gravitation
F = GMm/r2 Where F = gravitational attraction, G = the gravitational constant, M = mass of one body, m = mass of the second body, r = distance between the two bodies
in order for the equation to hold, he (Newton) assumed that the moon travels in concentric circles around earth and thus that the distance r is fixed (constant) (by definition of a circle). F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) If r was not a constant then the model does not hold. imagine if r was larger at one point then the moon could theoretically be gone from its orbit and if it's too close it would theoretically collide with earth and that is also according to his theory of inertia that a body set in motion remains in motion. Now it is claimed that the moon and other objects in our solar system travel in elliptical orbits and in order to keep track of the fact that everything in the universe is moving at unimaginable speeds that these objects are necessarily spiraling at various points to remain in their orbits. So the moon (in particular as an example) is therefore traveling at variable distances from the earth. Newton's theories aren't going to help you here. Remember that you said that you trust the theory
That's the theory, in any case. I, for one, never questioned it
. Good luck trying to explain what you really meant.

Of course Cavendish had to have balls to get a constant out of this.

The value of the gravitational constant, which Cavendish is credited with first establishing, is a consequence of the measurement units you choose, and in that sense is arbitrary: a mere mathematical artifact. What really counts about gravity as a physical phenomenon is what I tried to explain in my previous post in this thread. Namely, there is an attractive force between material objects, and the magnitude of this force depends on their masses and the distance between them.

In theory, this force is always present between all material objects. Obviously, "always" and "all" are impossible to prove in physics, so instead we wait and see if someone produces a counterexample in which the predicted gravitation is falsified. To my knowledge, we're still waiting after three centuries.


Henry Cavendish did not isolate the variable that he was trying to measure. He failed to eliminate many other variables. There are many problems with his experiment. I have found the following article to be quite logically written and difficult to counter showing that Cavendish's experiment is a fake.
I do not know if the Bible starts out with "In the beginnning, let
there be light", but the Bible is mostly fiction with the hints of
some historical truths, but mostly fiction. In the Cavendish
Experiment, we can say: In the beginning of the experiment, let the
first thoughts be logical thoughts.

Physics is the modern day bible. As I keep saying, Science is god, and
god is Science.

Now the Cavendish Experiment is fatally flawed, but of course in 1797,
Henry Cavendish would not have known much about electricity and
magnetism and seek to make sure that his experiment eliminated EM from
his experiment.

I went ahead and redid a mock- Cavendish Experiment with 50 lb steel
weights. I say mock because, not only did Cavendish fail to eliminate
static electricity, in that you can repeat the Cavendish Experiment
and get a torque in the torsion bar without using any weights, and
caused by applying a static electric charge, similar to making the
leaves of a electroscope move.

Let us go back to 1797 and do the Cavendish Experiment properly. We
first start with two balls of either lead or steel, preferably steel.
We suspend the steel balls near one another and independently
suspended. We put them as close together as possible without touching.
We then run a series of tests to see if the proper Cavendish
Experiment is worthwhile or doomed to perpetual failure.

Can the steel balls as they get closer and closer, have an attraction
that is as observable as when we bring two bar magnets closer and
closer, so that we cannot deny the fact that there is an "attraction"?
Not a pseudo wish desire that the Cavendish lead balls attract.

Because in the Cavendish Experiment, as I could easily see from my
mock Cavendish set-up, that I could put a weak magnet on one and both
will visibly come together. But without the magnet, I can never see
them come together.

But there is a worse culprit. The culprit that the ground where any
and all Cavendish type experiments are conducted the ground is moving,
or better, the ground is vibrating. Henry himself complained that as
he was doing the measurement, that the measurement was in oscillation.
So was Cavendish
measuring gravity, or probably, better yet, Cavendish was merely
measuring the jiggling of the ground due to Plate Tectonics of
continents adrift.

Now the Plates in South America are moving about centimeters a year.
The deflection of Cavendish Experiment was 4.1 mm. If Cavendish had
his setup in South America where the ground is noticeably jiggling,
then Cavendish would have had a far different answer. If we set-up
identical Cavendish Experiments, one near Chicago, one where Cavendish
actually did it, one near Tokyo Japan near active fault zone, etc etc,
we can expect all ranges of deflection, not because the experiment is
measuring gravity, but because it is an experiment that cannot exceed
the limitations of the fact that Plate Tectonics is a jiggling motion
that prevents the accuracy of a Cavendish Experiment to properly
function and work right.

So the question of In the Beginning of the Cavendish Experiment, Let
there be the first Logical Question: since the force of Newtonian
gravity is 10^39 weaker than the force of Electricity Magnetism for
which all material objects are composed of EM, then can there be an
experiment of Newtonian gravity that can differentiate out, separate
out the fact that EM is 10^39 stronger, and that one charge imbalance
in the Experiment would make the result a fake result.

What I am saying is that since EM is 10^39 stronger than Newtonian
gravity or General Relativity, that there never can be an experiment
on Earth that separates out EM from gravity as mass attraction. By
Logic, the Cavendish Experiment is an impossibility, to know if that
deflection was an EM deflection or a balancing imperfection or a
jiggling of the ground imperfection.

The take away by a real physicist, is that when all materials have EM
and that EM is 10^39 stronger than Newtonian gravity, that it is
impossible in an experiment to isolate the Newtonian gravity from EM.

The results of Henry Cavendish were make-belief, wish fulfillment
results, but not physics, not science for the experiment is bereft of
logic.

If someone set up the experiment at different locations around Earth,
each would experience different deflections depending on the
seismology of the ground shaking. The experiment can eliminate wind
currents and control the air. But none can control the ground of
jiggling. And none can control the fact that an object is made of EM.

Every one can witness, that no matter how large and massive of two
balls, of steel you make and place them close together, that there
never, ever was a perceptible attraction by Newtonian gravity of one
for the other. But everyone can build the tiniest of bar magnets and
notice that as you bring the two closer together, that the snap at one
another in attraction.

Also, the asteroid Ida and its moon Dactyl. Anyone doing the Cavendish
Experiment and believing it, should look at the asteroid belt, that
all the asteroids should have moons based on Cavendish Experiment, but
the fact is, that gravitational bonding is a rare phenomenon, because,
well, gravity is not Newtonian and that gravity is EM-gravity.

So the Cavendish Experiment is a fairy tale experiment, and not
physics. Physicists should be ashamed of that experiment, not proud.

Archimedes Plutonium

Reference: http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7657321&tstart=0
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Painterman on February 14th, 2016, 11:46 pm

JLapage wrote:So you changed from measuring the force between two bodies of any mass to a body and earth?

No, all my statements about measuring gravity have referred to the force between objects of known mass in the lab. The planet Earth is not an object in the lab.

Now I ask you, JLapage, can you cite a measurement of the force of gravity between objects of known mass in the lab that gave a result inconsistent with Newtonian gravity?

If r was not a constant then the model does not hold.

A second question:

By what reasoning do you conclude that orbital radius must be constant for the Newtonian model to hold?

Remember that you said that you trust the theory

No, I did not say that.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Critical Mass on February 15th, 2016, 12:13 am

Painterman wrote:No, all my statements about measuring gravity have referred to the force between objects of known mass in the lab. The planet Earth is not an object in the lab.

Now I ask you, JLapage, can you cite a measurement of the force of gravity between objects of known mass in the lab that gave a result inconsistent with Newtonian gravity?

Painterman you've been asked a number of times to bring to the forums attention these laboratory experiments you keep mentioning yet have failed to do so... why?

Instead you're asking for forum members to provide counter examples to your, so far only alleged to exist, laboratory experiments.

As far as I'm aware the only way of "measuring gravity" is by dropping steel bearings or something similar & timing their rate of fall (I'm happy to be corrected on this if that is not so)... but you seem to be implying there's another method using other objects?
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby JLapage on February 15th, 2016, 2:30 am

Painterman wrote:
JLapage wrote:So you changed from measuring the force between two bodies of any mass to a body and earth?

No, all my statements about measuring gravity have referred to the force between objects of known mass in the lab. The planet Earth is not an object in the lab.

Now I ask you, JLapage, can you cite a measurement of the force of gravity between objects of known mass in the lab that gave a result inconsistent with Newtonian gravity?

If r was not a constant then the model does not hold.

A second question:

By what reasoning do you conclude that orbital radius must be constant for the Newtonian model to hold?

Remember that you said that you trust the theory

No, I did not say that.


I don't think I want to play these types of games with you. One thing I can clearly show is that you did say what I claim that you did say. Just re-read the posts. I took the time to make quite a long post to leave no doubt as to what you said or failed to clearly state. But you still find a way to play mental jiu-jitsu with me, to roll with the punches so to speak.

You see I am not a physicist but I do know one thing and that is: all of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories (and frankly most of physics since the time of Newton) are thought experiments. Please read the excellent job by fellow member IC Freely under the thread 'the gods of science' (i believe that's what it's called). They (Newton and Einstein)turned physical problems into a mathematical abstractions and derived mathematical models to simulate the original physical problems/questions. So I have attacked the mathematical equation known as the Law of Universal Gravitation F = GMm/r2. I have already explained that in this model it was Newton himself who made the assumption that the orbit was circular. Again if you had read my post carefully you would see for yourself that I stated that already. So why do you ask me "By what reasoning do you conclude that orbital radius must be constant for the Newtonian model to hold?". Furthermore, from reading your posts you appear to make it look as if you were a physicist and if so you should enlighten us instead of trying to play these types of games. The only experiment used to try to support the Law of Universal Gravitation is Cavendish two balls experiment which I have already illustrated is fake science. Please read the post carefully. See the link that I have provided as the source of the brilliant guy who showed that Cavendish performed fake scientific experimentation. You have not explained how the scientific theories, that you believe in so much, can be used to calculate the mass of the earth and other celestial bodies. Please explain, and please be ready to answer questions akin to "which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Because in these mathematical models they do not make it clear.

I see something quite wrong and dishonest with scientists' approach of turning a physical problem into a mathematics problem and then turn around to ask us to falsify the physics theories in the lab. You are using the same approach. How about what's fair? You claim that you have an answer to a physical problem, you do the experiments and then come up with mathematical equations that support your laboratory results and then specify the limitations of your proposed mathematical model? In any case others have preceded me in showing the limitations of the Newtonian mathematical models. I have not discovered anything. I just read carefully to see for myself, that yes indeed there are limitations and that these limitations are enough to prove the models wrong or inadequate.

If I stated anything incorrectly or made invalid type claims please correct me.
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Painterman on February 15th, 2016, 12:09 pm

Here are five recent experiments to find the Newtonian gravitational constant G, each properly cited for the convenience of those who wish to scrutinize their methods.

All of these found G to be about 6.67 * 10^-11, in agreement with Cavendish, based on measurements of the gravitational force between objects of known mass in the lab, as opposed to any of the masses being the Earth or the Sun or other "outer space" object.

Fitzgerald and Armstrong
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 439 (1999)

F. Nolting et al.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 487 (1999)

Gundlach and Merkowitz, University of Washington
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2869 (2000)

T. Quinn et al., Bureau International des Poids et Mesures
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111101 (2001)

Schlamminger et al., Physik-Institut der Universitat Zurich
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 161102 (2002)

See also:

Determination of the Gravitational Constant Using a Beam Balance
http://www.schlammi.com/pdf/diss.pdf

These five are only for starters. Many others have been conducted over the years and got roughly the same result, as predicted by Newtonian gravity.

Now, can anyone cite a few experiments that looked for gravitational force between objects of known mass in the lab and got results that are inconsistent with Newtonian gravity? Or shall we conclude there is no such experiment?
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby JLapage on February 15th, 2016, 1:34 pm

Painterman wrote:Here are five recent experiments to find the Newtonian gravitational constant G, each properly cited for the convenience of those who wish to scrutinize their methods.

All of these found G to be about 6.67 * 10^-11, in agreement with Cavendish, based on measurements of the gravitational force between objects of known mass in the lab, as opposed to any of the masses being the Earth or the Sun or other "outer space" object.

Fitzgerald and Armstrong
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 439 (1999)

F. Nolting et al.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 487 (1999)

Gundlach and Merkowitz, University of Washington
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2869 (2000)

T. Quinn et al., Bureau International des Poids et Mesures
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111101 (2001)

Schlamminger et al., Physik-Institut der Universitat Zurich
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 161102 (2002)

See also:

Determination of the Gravitational Constant Using a Beam Balance
http://www.schlammi.com/pdf/diss.pdf

These five are only for starters. Many others have been conducted over the years and got roughly the same result, as predicted by Newtonian gravity.

Now, can anyone cite a few experiments that looked for gravitational force between objects of known mass in the lab and got results that are inconsistent with Newtonian gravity? Or shall we conclude there is no such experiment?


Why don't you explain a little how they conducted the experiments and what you think? In any case if you are saying the first five are based on the Cavendish method then these are null and void I have already told you why.

I have no idea how they determine the force using the beam method? can you explain?
Last edited by JLapage on February 15th, 2016, 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Critical Mass on February 15th, 2016, 6:09 pm

Painterman wrote:Fitzgerald and Armstrong
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 439 (1999)

F. Nolting et al.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 487 (1999)

Gundlach and Merkowitz, University of Washington
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2869 (2000)

T. Quinn et al., Bureau International des Poids et Mesures
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111101 (2001)

Schlamminger et al., Physik-Institut der Universitat Zurich
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 161102 (2002)

See also:

Determination of the Gravitational Constant Using a Beam Balance
http://www.schlammi.com/pdf/diss.pdf

Thanks for the link/references however please remember this is not a "link dumping site".

As JLapage says we shouldn't really drop links into threads without comment.

Forum members & any neutral readers* would like to know what you think of your link & the references**!

Either way I'll go through the "Beam Balance method" (I think I can guess what it involves based on the name...but we'll see).




* And I'm pretty much the most neutral guy you'll find on this topic as I care little for it.

** Please remember one can find "peer reviewed" references on things like Climate change "hockey sticks", Thermonuclear space earthquakes, tourniquet usage following the Boston Marathon, Apollo moon refractors & "Dark Energy"... It should therefore be clear to anyone that the value of a "peer-reviewed" reference has been much reduced.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Painterman on February 16th, 2016, 3:39 pm

Thanks for the constructive feedback, Critical Mass.

Concerning the citations in my previous post, I posted them because you asked that I "bring to the forums attention these laboratory experiments you keep mentioning". Citations like that are the standard way to bring experiments to people's attention.

Otherwise, those particular experiments have no significance here beyond what I've already said about such Newton-confirming experiments in general, which forum members and neutral readers will have read.

Meanwhile, I'm sure forum members and neutral readers are still waiting for a citation or two documenting experiments that contradicted Newtonian gravity in the laboratory.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby JLapage on February 16th, 2016, 4:24 pm

Painterman wrote:Thanks for the constructive feedback, Critical Mass.

Concerning the citations in my previous post, I posted them because you asked that I "bring to the forums attention these laboratory experiments you keep mentioning". Citations like that are the standard way to bring experiments to people's attention.

Otherwise, those particular experiments have no significance here beyond what I've already said about such Newton-confirming experiments in general, which forum members and neutral readers will have read.

Meanwhile, I'm sure forum members and neutral readers are still waiting for a citation or two documenting experiments that contradicted Newtonian gravity in the laboratory.


I am sorry but at best I can say you are not serious. I don't want to state what is the worst that I think of you.

You make a claim and you wish to turn the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim? I don't wish to make this post long. Anyone who follows the exchanges between you and me can clearly see that you aren't serious and in fact you don't know what you are talking about.

The burden of proof lies with you because you made the claim. Unfortunately for you I did already disprove your claim. But I don't think you could discern that much. Furthermore, supposing that I was not able or refused to take the time to disprove your claim, would that make your claim valid? Here's a nice example: My claim is that I have 100 Million USD. If you ask me to prove it and my claim is indeed correct, all I have to do is to just show you my bank account balance and then you can verify that my claim is correct. But if I make the claim and ask you to show that my claim is false and you are unwilling or unable to do so this unwillingness or inability does not mean that I indeed do have 100 Million USD anywhere in this world. I took the time to explain this to you and others who are wont to say "prove it" or (as in your case) "disprove it" so that you think a little about what you are saying. Good luck to you.
Note to MODERATORS:
Please see for yourselves that this guy is playing games and if you agree with my assessment concerning him and his childish methods then take some sort of action to either reprimand him or to ban him completely. Thank you.
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Critical Mass on February 16th, 2016, 7:16 pm

Painterman wrote:Concerning the citations in my previous post, I posted them because you asked that I "bring to the forums attention these laboratory experiments you keep mentioning". Citations like that are the standard way to bring experiments to people's attention.

They are the standard way in "academia"... not here. We do ask people to describe what they think of each piece of evidence.

Imagine if Simon just linked to The Public TV archives of 9/11 & said "go look for yourself"... instead he provides helpful gifs & jpegs & even a 3hr movie to help explain what he's found.

Neutral readers can disagree with Simons conclusions if they so wish... they certainly can't say that they have no idea where he got them from!




As to the "Beam Balance method" I've quickly read it... I must say it stretched my understanding of the words "laboratory" & "objects" to their limit!

A two floor underground test facility in a giant vacuum chamber & 27 tonnes of Mercury, 2 tonnes of Copper & 2 tonnes of Tantalum (plus all the sensitive calibration equipment & control equipment) is NOT what I imagined.

Either way as a neutral layman the experiment sounds like quite a good one to me & it seems to at least try & limit the problems of Cavendish's experiment which JLapage mentioned.

However it should be clear to anyone including Stephan Schlamminger (who has since gone on to join NIST... an organization I'm assuming you've heard of) that his experiment is not very "repeatable"... unless at immense expense.

Hence the problem with "modern academia"... shadowy government organizations that take "taxpayers" (read- useless mouthbreathers) money & perform mysterious experiments that we just have to trust are being done correctly & reported correctly (or even being conducted at all... there's no imagery I can find of such an extraordinary set-up).

I wonder when we can expect an "insider leak" to fatally compromise that "conspiracy theory"?

At the end of the day it seems to be a question of faith... you have faith in Schlamminger. JLapage & ICfreely don't.

I'm not sure if Cluesforum has a position on "religious freedom" but I, for one, think it's a good thing and I'm happy that you trust Schlamminger. Can you not see though that there is perhaps some justification in the alternative position of JLapage & ICfreely?





Myself I can only imagine what I would do if I was given, say, a million pounds of stolen money and asked to prove whether or not "Nukes exist". Even assuming I could justify the hypocrisy of taking the cash (perhaps I could say it'll count as a, much needed, "audit" for where peoples money has been going all these decades) would I...

(a) Go off on my own to Enewetak & come back six months later saying "Yay" or "nay"? Anybody who disagrees with my answer is declared "irrelevant" or "a nut".

(b) Realize the immense responsibility that has been given to me & take a large group of people... "sceptics" (Simon, Hoi, smj), "believers" (Peter Kuran, Alex "The Winker" Wellerstein, Carey Sublette), "Professionals" (I'll need some scuba divers for sure) & "neutrals" (some randomly selected people; a Buddhist monk, a cricketer... a car mechanic) to Enewetak & record diligently everything that we do, find or don't find? Heck we're all paying for the expedition anyway!



The incredible arrogance of somebody who could choose option (a) is what I find most startling.

Perhaps that's why you're managing to rub people up the wrong way yourself Painterman?

You are promoting some of the most arrogant creatures in the world and doing so in a rather distasteful tone.

My suggestion for you would be also to join Simon on his skype call... as well as realize the "Faith based" nature of your own position.




PS

The image of smj & Alex Wellerstein listening to Simon playing guitar on a ship in the Pacific sure makes me chuckle.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Painterman on February 16th, 2016, 9:39 pm

Critical Mass wrote:As to the "Beam Balance method" I've quickly read it...

I'm glad you took an interest in the paper. I hope others at this forum will do likewise and share their findings about any specific flaws they may find.

At the end of the day it seems to be a question of faith... you have faith in Schlamminger.

No, I do not. At least no more faith than I have in any other random person I don't know. It's more a question of the (far from perfect, yet still quite useful) error-checking function of the scientific method, applicable to experiments that can be widely replicated (as opposed to relying on the say-so of LIGO or NASA, for example).

On the one hand, there are hundreds of plausibly valid experiments, conducted worldwide over centuries, each claiming to confirm Newtonian gravity in a laboratory setting through various methods which have improved much since the days of Cavendish. If some, or even most, of these experiments were faked or invalid, that still leaves many others to make a persuasive case.

On the other hand, it appears no one in this thread can cite even a single experiment that contradicted Newtonian gravity in a laboratory setting.

The stronger case, indeed the vast preponderance of evidence, is on the side of Newtonian gravity being correct, at least where terrestrial (as opposed to celestial) mechanics is concerned.

My suggestion for you would be also to join Simon on his skype call...

I would like to do that sometime. Unfortunately, at present, my technical situation allows only the most basic internet use. I hope an opportunity to talk occurs again when better technology is available.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby ICfreely on February 16th, 2016, 10:06 pm

Painterman wrote:On the one hand, there are hundreds of plausibly valid experiments, conducted worldwide over centuries, each claiming to confirm Newtonian gravity in a laboratory setting through various methods which have improved much since the days of Cavendish. If some, or even most, of these experiments were faked or invalid, that still leaves many others to make a persuasive case.



If some, or even most, of these experiments were faked [and they were], then it begs the question, why?

What are the 'hundreds of plausibly valid experiments' you speak of which 'confirm Newtonian gravity'?

Which ones, in your estimation, 'make a persuasive case'?

Details?

Do you have an educational/occupation background in any scientific field?

Why must you always be so vague, Mr. Vaguey Vagueman?

Finally, WTF are you trying to prove/disprove? What purpose have you served here?
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Critical Mass on February 16th, 2016, 10:30 pm

Painterman wrote:On the one hand, there are hundreds of plausibly valid experiments, conducted worldwide over centuries, each claiming to confirm Newtonian gravity in a laboratory setting through various methods which have improved much since the days of Cavendish. If some, or even most, of these experiments were faked or invalid, that still leaves many others to make a persuasive case.

So far you've only mentioned two.... one centuries old & full of flaws.

The other an immensely expensive & nigh unrepeatable endeavour... even if we assume it took place at all (an assumption we'd be forced to make because there's little evidence the experiment actually took place).

How on earth can the "Beam Balance method", which involves thirty-one tonnes of expensive metals & a multilevel underground vacuum chamber, be "widely replicated"?

You're starting to irritate me now... please post an example of a "widely replicated" experiment and explain, in your own words, why a Neutral reader should accept it.

I'm not asking for much here... from someone who seems so confident of their position (a position I may agree with if you could explain yourself without sounding like a broken record player).
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby aa5 on June 5th, 2016, 12:26 pm

According to a guy I was reading, if you chop up permanent magnets into smaller magnets of all sorts of varying shapes, and then throw all your little pieces on the ground close to each other, they snap together and twist around, forming something approaching a sphere.

The South Pole on one side, North on the other, and the Bloch wall at the Equator of this mashed together sphere.

Is it a property of matter which causes this inwards pulling, or some have suggested it is an ether force. I don't know, what I do know is it seems to pull towards the center of the earth for regular objects near or on the surface.


On the other hand, if it is a pure pulling force, then why would the moon not be pulled towards the earth. The moon appears to be synched up with the earth, like caught in a magnetic orbit. The spin of the moon relative to the sun, is once per its monthly orbit of the earth.

I presume that the spinning magnetic fields of the earth and the moon, combined with the physical spinning of the earth relative to the moon & the orbit of the moon, slightly repels the moon if it comes too close, and slightly attracts the moon if it goes too far. Also because the moon orbits earth at an angle, at some points in the orbit it will be pulled by magnetic attraction, while at other points it will be repelled by magnetic repulsion.

The wobbling side to side of the moon's face as seen from earth is probably also about this magnetic locking. When it has momentum leftwards, and goes beyond its balance point, it is pulled rightwards, until that momentum takes it too far to the right, and then pulled leftwards.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 127
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests