What is Gravity?

[hoi.polloi]

Perhaps the "Cold of Space" thread should just be renamed: "What is Gravity?"

After all, if there's anything so immense and unavoidable it's the effect of being pushed to the ground at about 9.8 Newtons from every point on, under and (apparently) mostly "above" Earth. If it is anything at all, what is it?

There has been some discussion in the ongoing 'Cold of Space and our Universe that isn't' topic: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424

The "Cold of Space/Universe That Isn't" thread is for discussing alleged structure of the universe.
This "What is Gravity?" thread is for specifically gravity's role in that structure.

They are so closely linked as to be almost indistinguishable but I don't want the 'Cold of Space' thread to get too crowded with a single gravity problem. Perhaps they can be merged or re-organized later.

---

What is Gravity?

Flat Earth Theorists believe it is simply caused by mutual acceleration of the entire Earth, which is physically flat, and constantly going faster and faster "up".

Many Relativists and Electric Universe proponents believe it is a sort of electromagnetic force that perhaps can be explained by things called strings and/or superstrings.

Recent user 'sceppy' wants to use his odd metaphors and rambling speech to explain to us what gravity is and how we've all gotten it wrong for so long. Just teasing sceppy, we're open to real science here. Please go on. Gravity is just atmospheric pressure? That seems a bit outlandish and like troll bait. Can you explain, while minimizing the wacky metaphors, how your conception of gravity and pressure works?

[Flabbergasted]

Sceppy, if you are going to explain the effect of gravity between the Earth and the Moon as a result of atmospheric pressure, and the subsistence of an atmosphere between a gravity-less planet and a virtually endless vacuum subject to free gas expansion, it better be good!

[arc300]

Whether, he's right or wrong, there's nothing like a living toupee taking on the establishment:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

This guy isn't a fan of Electric Universe, he even has a video called EU Poppycock, but I'm sure his ideas would sit quite well within the broader EU framework.

But still, Sceppy, surely it isn't atmospheric pressure that is keeping the atmosphere attached to the earth? What say you?

[hoi.polloi]

Too bad the muffled bootleg video of a classroom setting is that of Richard A. Muller, the very same propagandist extraordinaire responsible for brainwashing hundreds (if not thousands?) of students with his NASA physics, as well as his books and writings on dinosaurs, terrorism and so on. Written about here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... ard+muller

Perhaps I'm just confusing him for another professor Richard Muller? But I doubt it.

Interestingly, this video already re-connects to our apparently inescapable universe thread that has more 'gravity' than other topics, if you will. Why? Because the video mentions Mach and since a Machian Framework is code for Geocentrist science (or so I'm told) we are right back where we started again. (please see Universe thread)

It's an interesting idea, however. And since I'm presently of the opinion that the Earth might not actually be spinning within this Machian Framework, I guess I shouldn't complain from a scientific point of view. But the stricter scientist in me demands a bit more credibility and less stoogy characters, and of course to test test test any hypotheses I'm at all tempted to cling to.

[arc300]

Too bad the muffled bootleg video of a classroom setting is that of Richard A. Muller, the very same propagandist extraordinaire responsible for brainwashing hundreds (if not thousands?) of students with his NASA physics, as well as his books and writings on dinosaurs, terrorism and so on. Written about here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... ard+muller

Perhaps I'm just confusing him for another professor Richard Muller? But I doubt it.

Interestingly, this video already re-connects to our apparently inescapable universe thread that has more 'gravity' than other topics, if you will. Why? Because the video mentions Mach and since a Machian Framework is code for Geocentrist science (or so I'm told) we are right back where we started again. (please see Universe thread)

It's an interesting idea, however. And since I'm presently of the opinion that the Earth might not actually be spinning within this Machian Framework, I guess I shouldn't complain from a scientific point of view. But the stricter scientist in me demands a bit more credibility and less stoogy characters, and of course to test test test any hypotheses I'm at all tempted to cling to.

No, it appears it is the same Muller. A warmista! And the talking toupee! I know, I know, our bullshit detectors should be frying, esp. in the case of the warmista. Yet I have still to find any explanation of gravity that even comes close to giving a physical (ie, REAL) explanation of gravitational attraction, one which doesn't resort to the esoteric, abstract, irrational (unable to be grasped by the mind) mathematical arse ejections that we are so accustomed to from NASA and the like. Those two guys may be shills, but a good shill should be mixing truth to bullshit at, I don't know, 80/20? Anyway, come on, Sceppy!

[hoi.polloi]

I know what you mean. It's so simple compared to the mathematical abstractions.

Particles pull toward one another. That does describe gravity. At least, the problem of the question of what gravity seems to do.

But perhaps I missed where he explains how distance creating entanglements would prevent smaller bodies from flying immediately to one another faster than larger bodies. Seems to go against common sense. I think the distance is a more likely explanation instead of some kind of overly complex entanglements of "rope". But I don't know the dope. I've no hope of becoming the pope. Nope.

[sceppy]

Ok, I will try and prove why gravity is nothing more than atmospheric pressure, because I know there are some really good logical thinkers in this forum, probably the best of the lot from what I've seen, so here goes.

Gravity is a fictional force used to describe all mannerisms of events inside and outside of earth, as we all know... and it apparently keeps our feet on the ground so we don't go flying off into space and what not.
The truth is, it's atmospheric pressure that keeps us and everything else in it's place, coupled with the density or mass/weight of whatever object.
This is going to take getting your head around, so bear with me on this. "I" hand on heart, absolutely promise you all I am 100% serious in what I say.
Molecules at sea level are compressed and agitated, just as all molecules are , all the way to the top of the earth.
Everything you see in the night sky is inside the earth, because the earth we live on, is like living on half of a huge orange or half of a huge ball. This part is liquids and solids all the way to the bottom as in molecules in various states of compression, making them smaller and packing in more of them into a smaller area=density.

Above sea level, we are into gases, which are less compressed molecules and even less compressed molecules, all the way to the top which gives us our other half of the orange or ball, as in a dome window of ice.
Sounds crazy doesn't it?
As gases rise to the top, they decompress and become less agitated , until they reach the top where they become more expanded and larger and docile, until they freeze, as in nitrogen.
We have a mixture of gases all the way around the dome and up the dome, in various forms, creating ice at the edges up until the very top which is nitrogen thick, as in, ice.
They freeze because they basically stop being agitated and simply do not move at all, or to look at it a better way, they achieve absolute zero temperature as we know it.
Outside of the dome, is a vacuum but not in the sense of anything 'sucking' because vacuums do not suck anything, they are simply devoid of any matter, or as in earth's situation, a vacuum is evacuating air molecules from a container or whatever.
Anything coming from under the ground we live on, by ejection, will always want to equalise itself into the area it came from or for want of a better term. Everything coming up, will be forced back down with pressure against their mass.
For instance: if we dig down and bring up ore for metals...we are only bringing up the ore that was on it's way down over time and we heat that up to turn it into mass on earth which has arrested it's decent even further due to that...but it still wants to be back where it came from, because its denser state does not belong on top, so the air pressure surrounds it and squashes it and breaks it down, over time, obviously... until it turns it into powder or oxidisation, so that it can seep or force its way back through the ground.
So basically , everything we are and everything we see, are all under pressure and this is your gravity.

I fully expect to be questioned on this and I welcome it.
I haven't got the earth fully worked out but I'm piecing the jigsaw together very fast, so let's get critical on this and you have my utmost sincerity that what I'm saying is due to me piecing the jigsaw together and not any attempt at trolling.

Any questions you have, let me deal with them one by one, so we can all get a clear understanding of each, as we go, if that's ok.

[sceppy]

I know what you mean. It's so simple compared to the mathematical abstractions.

Particles pull toward one another. That does describe gravity. At least, the problem of the question of what gravity seems to do.

But perhaps I missed where he explains how distance creating entanglements would prevent smaller bodies from flying immediately to one another faster than larger bodies. Seems to go against common sense. I think the distance is a more likely explanation instead of some kind of overly complex entanglements of "rope". But I don't know the dope. I've no hope of becoming the pope. Nope.

Don't think of particles as pulling towards each other. Think of them all 'pushing' onto each other or in football terms...crowds compressing each other in a surge and yet all wanting to stop the crush by becoming agitated because they are trying to expand their arms to push those away that are crushing them.

[sceppy]

Any questions you have, let me deal with them one by one, so we can all get a clear understanding of each, as we go, if that's ok.

1. What is a force?
2. What is energy?
Please reply either to 1 first or 2 second, or 1 second and 2 first, if you are confused. OK?

1.Force, is the weight of molecules (for instance) exerting their own weight onto those below them.
2. Energy is the strength of molecules resisting the force of molecules upon them.
If you need this clarifying more, then please give me scenarios and I will be glad to answer.

[scud]

Hmmm...This just has to be one of those ‘Rupert Sheldrake’ occurrences...
http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ (well worth your time).

I’ve been following the rocketry in a vacuum thread with great interest and literally last night, whilst researching for something worthwhile to add I accidentally stumbled upon this rather colourful character... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abu2lN3Jq98

What?! Two plumb lines dropped down a mine shaft 4,250 feet deep showed a divergence at the weighted end rather than the expected convergence??! Couldn’t be so, could it? Well it appears that the experiment and results were indeed real... Here’s a copy of the original report from the Daily Mining Gazette, October 8, 1901 where the first paragraph states... “At the Tamarack mine there has recently been conducted an experiment of the deepest interest to the engineering world. To the test made there was nothing new in principle, but the actual facts are such as to make it unique. In fact, it stands alone as an undertaking in mining engineering that may lead to certain new conclusions as to the laws of gravitation.” http://blogs.mtu.edu/physics/files/2000 ... bLines.pdf

Naturally, ‘Lord Steven Christ’ has concluded that this means that we must be living on the inside of the Earth where our environment is actually con-caved rather than con-vexed (yeah...what we see is all just an illusion created by a ‘glass dome’ at the Karman line... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXqIVXvrkg ).

I don’t think that I’m going to give the good Lord’s theories too much credence at the moment (particularly the space shuttle etc ‘crashing through the glass dome’ ) but it is interesting to note that the Tamarack mine experiment showed a triangulation that would converge at a point equal to what we most certainly know by simple observation to be Earth’s radius, except that this ‘centre of gravity‘ is above our heads rather than below.
Also, as with various other experiments that were made possible by man’s technological advances during this era, to confirm what was preached as fact but stood without evidence (I’m thinking Michelson - Morley, Sagnac and ‘Airey’s failure’ to ‘prove’ Earth's orbital speed and rotation) the Tamarack results do seem to have been suppressed and gone un-repeated.
Here’s ‘The Lord’s‘ link to the only attempted debunking of Tamarack, where I agree with him as to it being largely unfounded conjecture... http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm


P.S Hoi. Very sorry that I have not got back to your questions over on the geocentric thread, hopefully I’ll find the time that they deserve in the not too distant.

[rusty]

Naturally, ‘Lord Steven Christ’ has concluded that this means that we must be living on the inside of the Earth where our environment is actually con-caved rather than con-vexed (yeah...what we see is all just an illusion created by a ‘glass dome’ at the Karman line... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXqIVXvrkg ).

That would be the "inverse model" of the universe that I'm planning to write about for some time now...but it looks I don't find the time to elaborate on it in greater detail anyway, so I let the cat out of the bag for now and let you draw your own conclusions:

http://www.weltbildfrage.de/2frame.htm

The english content of that webpage is somewhat different from the german content, and I don't recommend all of it. I'm sure there are some outright errors, but the basic rectilineator experiment is nonetheless very interesting.

Here's the short version of it: Prof. Morrow conducted this experiment back in 1897 along the coast near Naples, Florida. He had figured out a very exact way of contructing a straight line by using these three "rectilineator" units. It took several weeks to cover almost 5km with it, but the result was clear without ambiguity: The surface of the earth is not convex, but concave, because that straight line was progressively nearing sea level. This means that earth is not a planet, but it rather is the shell that contains the whole universe. The diameter and radius of the earth is the same as in the "planetary earth" model of our universe.

The consequence of this finding - if it is indeed correct and not a purposefully contrived one - is also, that we cannot assume light and electromagnetic waves to follow straight lines at all.

I know it's hard to digest this one, but please take your time to let it sink in and draw you own conclusions before you dismiss it as a fraud and impossible right away. There are some brilliant minds who think that this model is as mathematically correct as our current "planetary" model. It's just by the usual NASA hogwash that most people today would not even remotely consider something like this to be true.

The explanation of gravity, of course, would also be influenced by this model. Especially there's no longer a need to explain the moon as a "gravitational slave" of the earth and the earth as a "gravitational slave" of the sun.

[Flabbergasted]

As gases rise to the top, they decompress and become less agitated , until they reach the top where they become more expanded and larger and docile [...]

[...] it still wants to be back where it came from, because its denser state does not belong on top

Your scenarios assume "conventional gravity" at work, binding and organizing matter.

[sceppy]

Thanks. More questions:

ok.

3. What is a weight of molecules producing force?

The weight is the mass upon mass upon mass,etc, creating a force like people would, stacked on top of each other. The people on top are only exerting their own force but those at the bottom are exerting their own force onto the ground but also have to contend with the forces above.

4. What is strength producing energy?

The force of molecules trying to expand back into the shape that is their natural shape. I.E, they attempt to expand to push those on top of then, back up. Like you lifting a weight above your head and it wants to crush you...but your energy pushes back against it, until you give up and lay under it compressed and trying to push it off of you.

5. Do you watch TV?

Yes....but seeing as I know where you are going here, I will say that I am watching agitated molecules or matter scrambling about, giving me the illusion of a picture that is mirroring the environment that picture was taken from, as in different shades of compressed matter.

6. Can you read?

Yes...and same applies to above.

7 Do you exist?

Yes...as lighter and denser matter that are decaying.

8. Religion - any?

Nope.

9. Your mother - she likes you?

She passed away...but I assume when she was alive, she liked me in terms of how we perceive like and dislike in our primitive minds.

[ADMIN: Please use the quote tool correctly. I have fixed your post by adding the requisite closing tags. -hp]

[sceppy]

As gases rise to the top, they decompress and become less agitated , until they reach the top where they become more expanded and larger and docile [...]

[...] it still wants to be back where it came from, because its denser state does not belong on top

Your scenarios assume "conventional gravity" at work, binding and organizing matter.

Not at all. Thinking of gravity in how you are told will just confuse what I'm getting at.
This is why people cannot get their heads around the logic, because mainstream science has literally soaked their brains in fantasy science principles.
We are all caught up in it and it's a case of trying to think away from what we have seen and read in books about stuff that is conveyed to us as real, yet cannot be verified by scientists themselves.
There's a reason for this and it's because it doesn't exist and is put there, backed up with mind numbing equations, which make the ordinary person and even students of science rack their brains to the point of starting to smoke and makes them give up even attempting to challenge it, because as we know, If you challenge science theories, you are ridiculed to the point of collapse.

To understand what I'm talking about, requires everyone to logically view it with a full on clear mind, away from this gravity nonsense.

[hoi.polloi]

According to Mister Christ, there is a shameful personality named Donald E. Simanek (oofta, moving on ...), who claims the plumb bob experiments were performed by, essentially, a pseudo-cult. His page was cited as a terrible example, and one of bad science used to cast doubt on relatively well-tested experiments.

The experiments in question allegedly prove gravity is a force pushing on us from the center of a concave Earth and we all inhabit the inside of this shell. From the citation in the video debunking the claims of a concave Earth, we are treated to this little familiar argument for NASA:

Even today we see small groups around the world who still advocate models evolved from Teed's Cellular Cosmogony. How does such a hollow Earth idea survive today, in the era of space travel? The Koreshans didn't have to deal with explanations of anything from Earth venturing far from the rock shell. They didn't have to sweat the details of variations of speed of light with distance from Earth. The Koreshans could describe the Moon as an illusion caused by focalization of light. Today men have walked on the Moon, and the "illusion" idea doesn't survive, unless, like the modern flat-Earthers, we assume that the entire space program is a giant conspiracy to deny the truth, faked on a Hollywood sound stage with clever special effects.

Hmm. A false dichotomy, or is this Donald Sim-fellow really invoking the Apollo hoax in hopes of that alone disproving the experiments?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm