What is Gravity?

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Nink on September 3rd, 2015, 10:12 pm

My understanding is Gravity is the collection of mIcro and macroscopic forces that occur in the combined mass of objects. The greater the combined mass the greater the gravitational force , the closer the combined mass is to another combined mass the greater the attraction between the masses will be ( inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) . This starts all the way down below the atomic level and is based on the force generated from the number of electrons in each atom. This is why the formulae for Gravity is similar to columns law as both are measuring the force between electron charges. The combination of all of the forces from ionic, covalent, van dar waals subsequently creates a combined force we simply refer to as gravity.

I am a supporter of the expanding earth theory. That earth has been taking on mass in the form of charged particles that have been coming from the sun and you can visually see this in the aurora borealis. So over 100s of millions of years the earths gravity has actually increased as the earth expands, this explains why massive creatures such as 80 tonne dinosaurs wandered around the planet when based on their skeletal structures under today's gravitational conditions theoretically would be crushed under their own weight.
Nink
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2015, 2:21 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Selene on September 4th, 2015, 12:51 am

Hi Nink,

curious to see your explanation/calculation (a rough one would be fine of course) for that idea.

The Earth is thought to have the current mass roughly for 4.5 billion years now (since the Theia-proto-Earth collision), with some minor additional mass from meteorites.

- how much mass do you guesstimate the Earth gained in the last let's say 100 Ma?
- how much does that change the gravity between then and now?

- do you think gravity is the only factor in explaining the giant size of the dinos (mind you, many CF-members do not believe in their existence; I don't see why they would be all fake(d)), or do changing atmospheric pressures and composition play a role too?
- Titanoboa existed some 6-8 Ma after the dinosaurs were wiped out and the mass of that monster is estimated over 1100 kilos (!!), how does that fit in your calculation?
- same for the 'recent' (up to human times) Pleistocene megafauna?

Welcome, by the way. :)

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Flabbergasted on September 4th, 2015, 3:20 am

Selene wrote:...since the Theia-proto-Earth collision...

Oh my, oh my. More of those wishful scenarios become fact.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 722
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Selene on September 4th, 2015, 7:35 am

Flabbergasted wrote:
Selene wrote:...since the Theia-proto-Earth collision...

Oh my, oh my. More of those wishful scenarios become fact.

Fact? It's the current model. Facts are pretty hard to establish from that age.

As I said; I don't see problems with that current model, it's more: I see problems how to explain geological observations without such a model.
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby ProperGander on September 4th, 2015, 2:17 pm

Newton's-Le Sage's Gravitation.
Gravity as a push .


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BC4fO5dYIc

Le Sage's theory of gravitation is a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation

The Evolution of Matter by Dr. Gustave LeBon
https://archive.org/stream/evolutionmat ... 7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/evolutionoff ... 5/mode/2up
The inventions : researches and writing of Nikola Tesla
https://archive.org/details/inventionsresear00martuoft
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on September 4th, 2015, 3:57 pm

Nink, you would benefit more from the way you word your hypothesis if you could prove that a dinosaur dig site shows that a dinosaur existed: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1594

My question is: If gravity is due to sheer mass, why don't cliff faces demonstrate the ability to have even the slightest pull on objects from the middle of the mountain mass?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Nink on September 4th, 2015, 4:35 pm

Selene wrote:Hi Nink,

curious to see your explanation/calculation (a rough one would be fine of course) for that idea.

The Earth is thought to have the current mass roughly for 4.5 billion years now (since the Theia-proto-Earth collision), with some minor additional mass from meteorites.

- how much mass do you guesstimate the Earth gained in the last let's say 100 Ma?
- how much does that change the gravity between then and now?

- do you think gravity is the only factor in explaining the giant size of the dinos (mind you, many CF-members do not believe in their existence; I don't see why they would be all fake(d)), or do changing atmospheric pressures and composition play a role too?
- Titanoboa existed some 6-8 Ma after the dinosaurs were wiped out and the mass of that monster is estimated over 1100 kilos (!!), how does that fit in your calculation?
- same for the 'recent' (up to human times) Pleistocene megafauna?

Welcome, by the way. :)

Selene


Great questions.
I would estimate the earth mass has increased by about 5.97E23Kg over the past 200 Ma and the radius of the earth about 320 meters so 200Ma gravity on earth back then was about 8.89 I agree this is a significant amount but if you look at history from about 200Ma to 100Ma the water levels rose dramatically about 250 meters (this is the new mass entering our atmosphere. Then from 100Ma to 10Ma they fell to the levels we have today. This is a result of the oceans lowering as the lithosphere crust expanded with all this additional mass. Now the water levels are rising again at a rate of about 3mm a year and this is a result of the continuous shower we receive from the Sun.

Giant Dino's I don't think are as heavy as estimated, and arguments range + or - sometimes as much as 50% depending on the method used to calculate. There would have been a range of contributing factors such as increased oxygen with 200M years of vegetation growth, if we go with my 90% guestimate of gravity you 80 tonne Dino would weigh 72 tonne 200Ma

The weight distribution on the Titanboa is completely different then on a Dino as it evenly distributed on a snake instead of 4 small points or 2-3 points when in motion depending on the gate.
We still had large land based mamals 60 M years ago but they are getting smaller I think the Paratherium weighed in at about 60 tonne or around 55 tonne if you adjust for gravity at approx 9.3 around 60Ma
Nink
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2015, 2:21 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Nink on September 4th, 2015, 7:17 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Nink, you would benefit more from the way you word your hypothesis if you could prove that a dinosaur dig site shows that a dinosaur existed: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1594

Can I please opt out of this discussion.

hoi.polloi wrote:My question is: If gravity is due to sheer mass, why don't cliff faces demonstrate the ability to have even the slightest pull on objects from the middle of the mountain mass?


Gravitational force is aligned with the centre of the mass. Cut the top off the mountain put it on a NASA rocket (cough) and send it 23000KLM into space and you will certainly stick to side of the mountain.

Try and stick a metal pin to the centre of a bar magnet (half way between North and South Pole). It will not stick it will move to either the north of the south side at the top or bottom of the magnet.
Nink
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2015, 2:21 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on September 4th, 2015, 11:03 pm

I give credence to expanding Earth, but I still don't think the point makes sense from our traditional education that teaches inherent gravity potential in every atom.

Because the mountain is touching other objects, all of its gravity is pulled out of it and transfered to the center of the largest mass it's touching? That seems to be a different theory than what we're taught. How many atoms have to be touching for all the atoms to "give" their gravity to the larger object — one? A million? A trillion? How long does it take? Seconds? Eons?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Selene on September 5th, 2015, 1:04 pm

Nink wrote:Great questions.
I would estimate the earth mass has increased by about 5.97E23Kg over the past 200 Ma and the radius of the earth about 320 meters so 200Ma gravity on earth back then was about 8.89 I agree this is a significant amount


Let's pause here. You estimate a volume of matter which is huge, added to Earth in the last 200 Ma.
- where is all that material coming from? Space?
- what kind of material would that be? Meteorites, meteoric dust or smaller particles like gases or liquids?
- or do you think the Earth grew in volume from within?
- can you back-up your idea with analysis of the Moon, which seems pretty constant (at least the visible side of her) in the last phase (Copernican)? Our understanding of the Moon luckily does not depend on the NASA crooks and has been acquired pre-1968.
but if you look at history from about 200Ma to 100Ma the water levels rose dramatically about 250 meters (this is the new mass entering our atmosphere. Then from 100Ma to 10Ma they fell to the levels we have today. This is a result of the oceans lowering as the lithosphere crust expanded with all this additional mass. Now the water levels are rising again at a rate of about 3mm a year and this is a result of the continuous shower we receive from the Sun.


Sea level (global, eustatic) is not a very good indicator for this. The global sea level is studied in detail yet many autbors are disagreeing about it, see below. The most widely used curve is that of Haq (red line) which shows drastic variations in the past 200 Ma

Image
link: http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~tony/watts/plate_flexure.htm
Giant Dino's I don't think are as heavy as estimated, and arguments range + or - sometimes as much as 50% depending on the method used to calculate. There would have been a range of contributing factors such as increased oxygen with 200M years of vegetation growth, if we go with my 90% guestimate of gravity you 80 tonne Dino would weigh 72 tonne 200Ma


Ok, but the oxygen levels in the atmosphere are not constant either. Again, too many factors play a role to pinpoint it. Wouldn't the atmospheric compositional variation (and air pressures etc.) be enough to explain the huge size of dinos? I.e.: do we need varying gravity to explain it?


The weight distribution on the Titanboa is completely different then on a Dino as it evenly distributed on a snake instead of 4 small points or 2-3 points when in motion depending on the gate.
We still had large land based mamals 60 M years ago but they are getting smaller I think the Paratherium weighed in at about 60 tonne or around 55 tonne if you adjust for gravity at approx 9.3 around 60Ma

Ok, I agree the anatomy is very different. The existence of the giant beast has been explained by the different atmospheric composition and temperature of the time (estimated at ~2000 ppm CO2!! and an average global Temperature in the greenhouse (no ice) world of 10-12 degrees higher than today), source: Miracle Planet documentary.

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby hoi.polloi on September 5th, 2015, 9:30 pm

Nink (post moved to DERAILING ROOM) wrote: I realize magnetism and gravitational force are different [principles] but the concept remains the same.


Well, they would seem very comparable in your explanation; but I have never heard of gravity having polarities. Are you suggesting gravity is polarized? It seems by characterizing gravity as something that behaves a little like magnetism (which certainly makes some sense), you have already improved on an explanation I received in my (admittedly American public school). However, to say that gravity works as much like magnetism as you've explained eludes a practical explanation for anything gravity is said to effect in the real world.

What does it mean to say that two objects can no longer become closer to one another? At what point does nature deem this so?

You are suggesting gravity's center is contingent on gravity — it's a bit circular in reasoning. In a case where situation 1 represents a massive box and a smaller box attracted ("gravity" in yellow) to the center of a very massive convexity and the smaller box is attracted to the massive box ("gravity" in blue); and in the same case situation 2 represents the center of gravity having been transferred to the unified mass of the two more massive objects; which of the bottom boxes is the correct "situation 3"?

gravity123.GIF


By your explanation, you seem to be telling us the gravity of the massive box is transfered to the center of the massive "ground" by simply being supported on legs that do not give way (like the illustration in the lower right). So you are basically saying the illustration in the lower left (whereby the small object is still attracted to the large, which is the logical behavior of gravity if it seriously is related to mass) is not relevant. Correct me if I misunderstood you, because if that's so, it's like saying gravity only matters as long as something is falling — i.e.; being directly affected by gravity until the moment the object comes to be at rest, at which point gravity ceases to exist in anything but the largest context imaginable, which isn't comparable to anything else. It's basically like saying the only thing that has gravity on Earth is Earth, which is a bit of a useless explanation for gravity, isn't it?

Also, that explanation seems to suggest that the moment two objects can become closer, the "centers of gravity" return instantly to each object in question, and the moment they touch, they are no longer attracted to one another. How thrillingly bizarre and conveniently inaccessible.

Furthermore, and unfortunately for those that believe such "science", it still would not preclude potential experiments to locate gravity by means of careening magnetically neutral objects through the air at parallels, repeatedly, until it can be shown that they are attracted to one another and not just the Earth. Unless you are telling me objects that have not yet resolved to Earth's gravity also do not have gravity.

:huh:

Sounds a bit like a Masonic and circular-reasoned non-explanation for gravity to me.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Critical Mass on September 6th, 2015, 12:52 pm

My understanding of the expanding earth model is that it is a model proposed by geologists to explain several observations/problems with the plate tectonic model.

As for how the Earth grows or expands (or whether its gravity changes over time) that was meant to be a problem for physicists to solve... the idea put forward by Nink is only one of many theories & ideas.

The lack of any really solid mechanism proposal is one of the reasons the model was rejected 'by consensus'.

Cluesforum may be interested to know that the primary evidence for the Earth not expanding was provided by Satellites.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby simonshack on September 7th, 2015, 2:30 am

Nink wrote:I would estimate the earth mass has increased by about 5.97E23Kg over the past 200 Ma (...)


Oh. 5.97E23kg? May I ask how exactly you estimated that?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Selene on September 7th, 2015, 3:37 pm

simonshack wrote:
Nink wrote:I would estimate the earth mass has increased by about 5.97E23Kg over the past 200 Ma (...)


Oh. 5.97E23kg? May I ask how exactly you estimated that?


I am curious too.

200.000.000 years and ~ 6 * 10^23 kg would mean about 3 * 10^15 kg of extra material per year??

1 giant meteorite of 10 km3 (10*10^9 m3) would weigh some (rho ~ 3 kg/m3) 3*10^10 kg, so that means 100.000 giant meteorites or the equivalent of that per year in extra added material to Earth? That seems impossible.

If Nink states the extra material is not rocks (meteorites) but "solar wind particles" or so, the volume increases even more... :o

And what is the "function" of the Van Allen belts then? In the current model those rearrange solar wind particles and keep them in orbit resulting in auroras in the polar regions. Are there any measurememts w.r.t. volume or mass added on particles "raining" down on Earth in these areas??

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Postby Nink on September 7th, 2015, 4:56 pm

Before I answer the question in regards to the makeup of the ~3*10^15 kg per year, and how something of such mass could enter our atmosphere relatively undetected, I would like to ask a couple of questions please.

1) Where did the ~1,386,000,000 cu km that scientists currently estimate or 1.386*10^21 kg of water on earth originate from?
2) If the earth has remained the same size but the oceans according to previously posted data, managed to rise and fall ~250 m over the past 200 million years, and if we assume this information is correct, where did that volume of water come from, and where did it go?
Last edited by Nink on September 7th, 2015, 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nink
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2015, 2:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest