Proof of cause of gravity

[Nigel]

Particle-wave duality is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The outward motion of matter in the big bang is therefore balanced by inward directed fabric of space, maintaining a full continuity of volume, just as air moves into a suitcase when you take clothes out of it. The pressure towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by the shielding of the planet earth below us.

Hence, the overriding push is that coming downwards from above us, which is greater than the shielded effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration due to gravity. Thus you now know why apples fall!

Here is a brief scientific review article, prepared for submission to the Physical Review in due course, based on the longer article just published in Electronics World:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

[:)]Electronics World, Vol. 109, No. 1804 (2003), published by Highbury House Communications Plc, containing on pp. 47-52, 'The Electronic Universe Part 2' (Cook) including mathematical proofs and quantitative unification for the mechanisms of nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Available from newsagents or by subscription: Wyvern Subscription Services, Link House, 8 Bartholomew’s Walk, Ely Cambridge, CB7 4ZD, England, Tel 01353 654431; Ray Barnes, Reed Business Publishing Ltd, 475 Park Avenue South, 2nd Fl New York, NY 10016, USA, Tel (212) 679 8888, Fax (212) 679 9455; Pierre Mussard, 18-20 Place de la Madeleine, Paris 75008, France.



General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas1. This paper reviews and extends the straightforward mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity, published in Electronics World1, resolving this problem. The result is compatible with general relativity and the Newtonian approximation by substituting into the Einstein field equation the proven expression for the universal gravitational constant, which is locally G = (3/4)H^2/[(pi)(rho)], where H is Hubble’s constant and rho is the average density of the surrounding universe. Gravity is proven to be dielectric pressure in reaction to the big bang – somewhat like the flow of air in the opposite direction (but with the same volume and rate) to a person walking along a corridor. This inward reaction dielectric due to the increasing speeds of stars receding at increasing distance from us is partly shielded by stars and planets, producing an asymmetry and hence ‘attraction’ to any mass. It was predicted prior to observation that because gravity is the reaction to surrounding expansion, recession of the most distant supernovas will not be slowed1.

The empirical law of gravity incorporating the universal gravitational constant has not previously been subjected to any mathematical proof in terms of a consistent mechanism. Commonplace arguments that gravity is caused by an elastic pull are easily rejected since the resulting force would increase with distance. Feynman2 however gives a qualitative pressure analogy in which gravity is the net pushing force when objects shielding one another from an all-round pressure. He correctly rejects the assumption of a particulate fabric of space, because particles deliver and receive momentum, thereby causing a drag effect. Schutz4 argues that the source of the gravitational field in general relativity may be considered to be a perfect continuum, which produces no drag: "A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighbouring fluid elements is pressure."

Molecular fluid resistance takes the forms of drag due to particles hitting surfaces and carrying away momentum with their recoil, and displacement resistance due to the displacement of fluid from their volume as they move. For a continuous fluid, only displacement resistance would occur. It is well known with dense fluids that displacement resistance is greatest in starting and stopping the motion of objects, i.e., acceleration and deceleration. In water, with a density nearly a thousand times that of sea level air, the molecules are spaced closely together and the displacement resistance clearly predominates over drag at low speeds. In moving through a fluid, the surrounding air or water flows around the object, maintaining continuity. When accelerating from zero velocity, and in decelerating, the flow of water around the submerged object is started or stopped, which increases the inertia (resistance to acceleration) of matter in a fluid. These considerations show that a continuous fabric of space would not exhibit drag effects, but would produce a displacement resistance. It is therefore possible to suggest that the displacement resistance of continuous space around subatomic particles in a vacuum is the cause of Newton’s first law, inertia.

The waves in space created by accelerated and decelerated subatomic particles are well known (photons). Spherical waves are created in particulate fluids (such as spherical diverging sound waves in air) because molecules can strike one another at random. This statistically means that for a very large number of molecules, energy will be dispersed approximately equally in all directions. However, the continuous fabric of space would not permit this mechanism to operate. This model therefore suggests why a photon does not spread out spherically like waves in fluids.

Evidence for the continuous physical nature of the fabric of space had also been stressed by Catt3, who points to the fixed 377 ohms impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy. The resistance of particulate matter is expressible in ohms/metre, due to the number of particles in the material length, rather than simply ohms. This difference suggests that the fabric of space is a non-particulate continuum in which particles of matter are imbedded.

It was proposed1 that a mechanism of gravity should be developed to rigorously test all of the consequences of this semi-speculative physical fluid model for the fabric of space. This paper shall first use the proposed model to provide a step by step mathematical proof of the established general gravitational law, including the universal constant G, by calculation of the space pressure produced in response to the big bang. This paper shall then show that the proposed model uniquely predicts that the recession speeds of distant supernovae should not be gravitationally retarded.

According to the physical fabric of space analogy already described, geometrical volume is equivalent to the sum of the its volume of fluid space plus its volume of matter. Therefore, if we accept that the stars are receding as modern astronomy shows, we must accept that the fabric of the vacuum moves in the opposite direction (towards us), maintaining the continuity of volume. If one walks down a corridor, a volume of matter V moving in one direction will be continuously balanced by a volume of air, also V, moving in the opposite direction; this is why walking does not create a vacuum!

Since distance is proportional to time (the sun being 8.3 light-minutes away, and the next star 4.3 light years, etc.), the statement of the Hubble recession constant as velocity divided by observed distance is misleading since the stars will recede by a further amount during the interval that the light is travelling to us, but a true ‘constant’ for the speed of recession is proportional to the time taken for light to reach us (which is also the time past when the light was actually emitted). Correcting Hubble’s error thus gives us a constant which has units of acceleration, and leads directly to gravity.

The pressure due to the acceleration of the fabric of space towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally except where reduced by the shielding of the planet earth below us. Hence, the overriding dielectric push is that coming downwards from the stars above us, which is greater than the shielded effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration due to gravity (Fig. 1). We shall calculate step-by-step the gravitational acceleration due to one mass, i.e., the 'curvature in space-time' which causes apples and people to accelerate at the same rate....
For full maths see:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nice explaination, just that if it is the pressure exerted from outside that is the cause of gravity, then how is the pressure that is within the earth, far exceeding the external pressure, generated at the levels required, for what is observed.

BTW nice use of the 'etherial' medium, without mention of it.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Nigel Cook

Well written, very interesting. Congratulations on getting it published.

[Nigel]

The pressure produced in the earth is massive. If you go 10 metres under water, the water pressure is 1 atmosphere so you have a total pressure of 2 atmospheres. Since earth is denser than water, the pressure with depth is greater.

In answer to your question, the reason for the pressure in the earth is the compound weight produced by all that mass. The mathematical proof gives the Newtonian formula, and you calculate the effects of gravity in the usual way.

As for the chemical ether, that does not seem relevant to me!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ether is a chemical, it is also the 'old school' name for what had been surmized as being the medium of propagation of light.

If the pressure is externally generated, then the matter would not have weight itself, it would be generating the pressure, and would that not want for it to expand?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You talk about area of spheres, and the idea begs the question of why the moon would experiance less pressure, if the sourcing of the pressure was external, then the Earth, as both would be in the same pressurized field.

Shouldn't they both be experiancing the same/identical pressurizational effect?

[Nigel]

The paper derives the gravity formula and the constant in 16 numbered steps, but you do not refer to them.

Material pressure is generated when matter has a weight on top of it pressing down. Gravity occurs when matter is accelerated by the surrounding space. The cause of the acceleration of gravity is an asymmetry in the pressure from the surrounding space:

1. Pressure from the fabric of space causes gravity as proven.

2. Pressure inside the earth is caused by the cumulative weight of matter pushing down from above.

These two factors are completely separate! Many thanks.

[Nigel]

I've just added an animated gif, showing the Hubble big bang causing gravity, which makes the acceleration mechanism clear: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

[Nigel]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Well written, very interesting. Congratulations on getting it published.

Many thanks for that. It took years to get it into print!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I would still like to know why there is a difference in the gravitational strengths on the moon, relative to the earth, as according to your assertions, they would both be in the same external gravitational environments, and should therefore have the same level of gravity acting upon them.

Size would not matter as any two different balls lowered into the ocean, to two atmospheres of pressure, experiance the same pressure, size does not matter, in this instance, yet we know that the two bodies experiance different gravities.

(P.S. My time on the computer was only just extended by 15 minutes, so I've not alot of time to do this, bear with me please.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
The paper derives the gravity formula and the constant in 16 numbered steps, but you do not refer to them.

Material pressure is generated when matter has a weight on top of it pressing down. Gravity occurs when matter is accelerated by the surrounding space. The cause of the acceleration of gravity is an asymmetry in the pressure from the surrounding space:

1. Pressure from the fabric of space causes gravity as proven.

2. Pressure inside the earth is caused by the cumulative weight of matter pushing down from above.

These two factors are completely separate! Many thanks.


So this statement, emboldened, contradicts this statement, from your page....

Originally found on Nigel's 'referenced' (above) page

[Mass of outward moving mass surrounding r]

Apparently, (It could just be me??) these two statements seem to be contradictory as one says that the mass is pressing down, the onter says that the mass is moving outwards, which is it?

I suspect you have stumbled upon a nicer version of manner of explaination, but not the right one, Because the only reason that the Mass of the Earth presses down (the reason that anything/everything has weight) is because of the gravitational pressure that the atoms of the Earth, themselves, generate.

But, as I have said, I could be wrong, so, please show me!

[Brad_Ad23]

Hmm..intriguing.

So what you are saying is that (general questions as well)

1)Spacetime is continuous on all levels?
2)Volume of spacetime is constant?
3)A pressure is the cause of gravity? If so, how does that explain gravitational lensing? Black holes?
4) How exactly is a person to remain on a surface if the body is rotating? That would imply this pressure is exerting a force only in specific directions. Otherwise it should create a tangential acceleration on body on a rotating mass, imparting an impulse upon them and driving them off the rotating body. If this pressure field is perfectly dragless, then how is it able to impart any force upon a mass as it would at some level have to undergo an interaction, resulting again in the special case of directional-preference of what is supposed to be an omni-direction field.


That is all for now. I'm currently reviewing the math, though at first glance it seemed ok. However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)

good job though!

[thed]

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity

So why was this not published in a Physics or Astronomy journal? Phys. Rev. or Ap. J. would be more suitable. Publishing 'ground breaking' work in journals that have no relevance to the subject matter is dubious, to say the least.

Now to the meat, as such. How does this theory explain observations adequately described, even predicted in advance, by GR. That is, precession of perihelion of Mercury, gravitational time dilation, black holes, dragging on binary neutron stars, the hubble constant itself (remember that this is derived from conventional GR) and all the normal stuff.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So this statement, emboldened, contradicts this statement, from your page....



Apparently, (It could just be me??) these two statements seem to be contradictory as one says that the mass is pressing down, the onter says that the mass is moving outwards, which is it?

I suspect you have stumbled upon a nicer version of manner of explaination, but not the right one, Because the only reason that the Mass of the Earth presses down (the reason that anything/everything has weight) is because of the gravitational pressure that the atoms of the Earth, themselves, generate.

But, as I have said, I could be wrong, so, please show me!

The more mass, the more shielding, and the more of a net push towards the shield. The moon has a smaller mass than the earth so smaller surface gravity.

You state that there is a contradiction between the big bang (outward motion of matter many light years away) and gravity, and try to claim that this is my contradiction. The outward motion of clusters of distant galaxies causes gravity.

If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake. The air flows in the opposite direction. An equal volume of air to my volume goes in the opposite direction to me at the same speed, filling in the void. The same occurs with moving submarines underwater. If you have an accelerating object, you get a wave of air or water accelerating in the opposite direction. The total effective volume is equal to the volume displaced by the moving object, and the speed or acceleration is the same, except in the opposite direction.


With the fabric of space, exactly the same thing is produced by the big bang: the fabric of space presses towards us because the clusters of galaxies are accelerating away (with a speed proportional to their observed distance). This pressure causes gravity as I prove, getting the law plus a formula to calculate the constant G which was never done before. My argument is that having got this formula, the problem is solved.

Dr Stanley Brown, editor of the "Physical Review Letters" claimed that the cause of gravity is a solved problem in physics, so I'm pleased that although you don't like my paper, at least we you are not prejudiced against the prospect of progress!

[;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Hmm..intriguing.

So what you are saying is that (general questions as well)

1)Spacetime is continuous on all levels?
2)Volume of spacetime is constant?
3)A pressure is the cause of gravity? If so, how does that explain gravitational lensing? Black holes?
4) How exactly is a person to remain on a surface if the body is rotating? That would imply this pressure is exerting a force only in specific directions. Otherwise it should create a tangential acceleration on body on a rotating mass, imparting an impulse upon them and driving them off the rotating body. If this pressure field is perfectly dragless, then how is it able to impart any force upon a mass as it would at some level have to undergo an interaction, resulting again in the special case of directional-preference of what is supposed to be an omni-direction field.


That is all for now. I'm currently reviewing the math, though at first glance it seemed ok. However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)

good job though!

1 & 2- The fabric of space, said Einstein in his Leyden university lecture, has "physical qualities" according to general relativity. So this cause of gravity is consistent with that. 3-Same again, we have derived the equation so we calculate with it. Black holes occur where the escape velocity = speed of light. 4-The force is not exerted in specific directions: because the Hubble recession of galaxies away from us is very uniform at large distances where the speeds and masses are greatest, the inward space pressure is isotropic. It is the shielding of this pressure by mass which accelerates you towards the mass.

You can say that the motion of the fabric of space around moving particles is a wave in space, like the wave of air flowing around a moving car or person. The de Broglie equation shows that wavelength varies with speed. However this is quantum mechanics, and the paper is about gravity and cosmology!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by thed
So why was this not published in a Physics or Astronomy journal? Phys. Rev. or Ap. J. would be more suitable. Publishing 'ground breaking' work in journals that have no relevance to the subject matter is dubious, to say the least.

Now to the meat, as such. How does this theory explain observations adequately described, even predicted in advance, by GR. That is, precession of perihelion of Mercury, gravitational time dilation, black holes, dragging on binary neutron stars, the hubble constant itself (remember that this is derived from conventional GR) and all the normal stuff.

In December, the physics preprint ARXIV.ORG server automatically accepted the paper for a few minutes, then it was manually removed by someone there paid to censor out anything which is on the Inquisition Index. A lengthy email argument showed that they simply rejected anything which did not accept existing philosophy about laws of nature being unexplainable. The same came from Dr Brown of Physical Review Letters. I would be dead and buried long before Physical Review or Nature got around to publishing on this, and I don't see why I should wait until then!

Besides, Electronics/Wireless World has a reputation for printing revolutionary new theories, for example it published Arthur C Clarke's original December 1945 paper proving how space satellites can be used for global communications and TV.

As for general relativity: the comments by Einstein and Catt on the physical properties of space in general relativity (GR) motivated this. The result is an equation for the universal gravitational constant which is then substituted into the field equation of GR. Then GR does all the normal things which you refer to. The only difference occurs at very great distances, when old GR fails but GR with the equation derived in the paper correctly predicts the lack of gravitational retardation of the furthest galaxies and supernovas. This was done in 1997 and promoted in a letter to Electronics World, and then Saul Perlmutter made the experimental discovery of distant supernova red shifts a year or more later. This proved the theory. I wrote again to Nature, however, as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

[Brad_Ad23]

Thanks for your response, however you still did not address questions

1, 2, 3, and 4.

I asked if spacetime is continuous on all levels...i.e. does your idea say it is non-discrete.

I asked if your paper implies then that the volume of spacetime remains constant (I take it to mean it does from what I read).

You still did not provide an adequate description of how this isotropic pressure can account for gravitational lensing, nor even that of a black hole...which according to your method would then wind up draining all of spacetime into itself at any rate (or at the least, the pressure gradient would then decrease as the pressure stabilized around this body).

And 4 was not even addressed in its proper physics.

I must second thed's question.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Thanks for your response, however you still did not address questions

1, 2, 3, and 4.

I asked if spacetime is continuous on all levels...i.e. does your idea say it is non-discrete.

I asked if your paper implies then that the volume of spacetime remains constant (I take it to mean it does from what I read).

You still did not provide an adequate description of how this isotropic pressure can account for gravitational lensing, nor even that of a black hole...which according to your method would then wind up draining all of spacetime into itself at any rate (or at the least, the pressure gradient would then decrease as the pressure stabilized around this body).

And 4 was not even addressed in its proper physics.

I must second thed's question.

Yes, space is continuous, as stated in the paper. I do not know what you are referring to by "at all levels" but if you mean "at all scales of distance" then the answer is yes again.

What is constant is the sum of the matter plus fabric of space within a given volume.

Gravitational lensing occurs in exactly the same way with the mechanism for general relativity as without it: light bends because it is deflected by gravity. A glass lens deflects light by altering the speed of light travelling through the varying thickness of glass across the lens. In the same way, the varying gravitational acceleration with distance from a mass - which in my paper is due to shielding from the all-round fabric of space pressure giving the equation, and in existing textbooks is just due to an empirical law or guessed field equation. This variation in gravity with distance causes gravitational lensing.

Question 4 - this spinning earth issue applies to existing physics and the existing admission of a fabric of space. You have to tilt a telescope according to the earth's motion to "catch" the light from a star. Gravity is weaker at the earth's equator because of the spin acceleration = speed squared divided by earth's radius, which slightly offsets gravity. I've already answered Thed's question (see above, it probably crossed with your last submission so you didn't see it appear before your latest).
[:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

True, our replies crossed.

However, the thing is, the mechanism that causes light to be bent by gravity in general relativity is the curvature of spacetime :) Your mechanism does not allow for that. Without spacetime curvature there is no reason for massless objects to be impacted by gravity.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
True, our replies crossed.

However, the thing is, the mechanism that causes light to be bent by gravity in general relativity is the curvature of spacetime :) Your mechanism does not allow for that. Without spacetime curvature there is no reason for massless objects to be impacted by gravity.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Nigel


No. The curvature of the space-time continuum is a physical indentation caused by the shielding effect of a mass. The paper derives the gravity acceleration equation and uniquely the equation for the gravity constant G for one mass.

Light is deflected by the gravitational acceleration field, regardless of whether it has mass. Sorry but you are mistaken and carefully see what the paper actually does.

If I drop a grain of sand and an elephant, both accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. The same for a ray of light, for electrons, etc, regardless of their mass! The acceleration is independent of the mass of the object being accelerated.

If you have two equal masses, then they attract each other equally.

But the most basic case is that you need only 1 mass to get a gravitational field causing things to fall towards it. That is what I do in the proof to get the gravitational acceleration equation for mass M of a = MG/r^2, where I find that G is given by a formula including the Hubble constant and density of matter in space.

To get the Einstein field metric you replace Einstein's constant G with the formula I derive. To get Newton's force equation, you use Newton's second law F = ma. This gives: F = ma = mMG/r^2.

Here m is the mass of the falling object, whereas M is the mass of the object causing the thing to fall. So m is your mass and M is the earth's mass. What you are doing is criticising this Newtonian force equation, which is not even mentioned in my paper, which just gives the gravity acceleration formula. Please lay your blame on Newton's confusion and textbook author's ignorance of relativity, not on me!

In fact, you are also mistaken in saying that light has no mass. Light has no rest mass, but it has a transit mass given by Einstein's E = mc^2. The mass of light in motion is simply m = E/c^2. This is because any electromagnetic field has momentum and mass. Light is an oscillating electromagnetic field!

I hope that by pointing out the errors in your particular attempts at criticism of my eight years of unfunded research, you do not feel that I am trying to be in any way arrogant. The people who are arrogant are those who try to block progress by being dismissive of new ideas without taking the time to study them properly. You are being helpful to me by stimulating discussion, and I am grateful for that.
[:(]

[Brad_Ad23]

I looked through the paper, but there was nothing that would describe a curvature of spacetime. If we are invoking parts of relativity here, I'm going to stick with Einstein on this one.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I looked through the paper, but there was nothing that would describe a curvature of spacetime. If we are invoking parts of relativity here, I'm going to stick with Einstein on this one.

Says Albert Einstein, "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", Annalen der Physik, v. 49, 1916, section 14:

"We make a distinction hereafter between 'gravitational field' and 'matter' in this way, that we denote everthing but the gravitational field as 'matter'."

I agree with him. Space time is distinct from matter, its curvature is the gravitational field. If you don't like the idea that gravitational acceleration causes the curvature of space, then I suggest that you explain what you you think you mean by curvature.

Einstein is explicit. Space-time curvature is the gravitational field. Period. When you see the gravitational acceleration in my paper you are seeing curvature. Einstein says so, and I agree with him. G(uv) = 0.5g(uv).G = -kT(uv), where G is the scalar of curvature, G(uv) is the Riemann tensor of curvature, and T(uv) is the mass-energy or matter tensor. In this we have u and v each representing the four space-time coordinates. Curvature denotes the motion of a test particle of infidesimal mass in a gravitational field. Curvature is just a mathematical way to express gravitational acceleration as the space-time path of such a test particle.

[Brad_Ad23]

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. That's all that is needed. There is no need to invoke some ehtereal pressure field that you claim causes gravity due to mass shielding. It is too excessive.

[Andre]

Impressive work, Nigel
HoweverGravity is weaker at the earth's equator because of the spin acceleration = speed squared divided by earth's radius, which slightly offsets gravity.So you do not agree with my thread about non dependency of gravity with lattitude?http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=333

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel you mention that the 'pressure out' is equal to the 'pressure in', but in the physical measurements of the planet it is found that the density of the rock that comprises the Earth needs be quite a bit higher then what is found at the surface as to equate with the total mass of the planet.

So if the pressure was really an 'out' factor, from within the planet, then the most dense rock would be found at the surface of the planet, and it is NOT, the lighest, and least dense, is found at the surface.

If you would wish to tell me that this is a factor of the weight of all of the rock pressing down, well, then where the heck did your pressure out go?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake. The air flows in the opposite direction. An equal volume of air to my volume goes in the opposite direction to me at the same speed, filling in the void. The same occurs with moving submarines underwater. If you have an accelerating object, you get a wave of air or water accelerating in the opposite direction. The total effective volume is equal to the volume displaced by the moving object, and the speed or acceleration is the same, except in the opposite direction.

Nigel, forgive me but your 'brilliance' is about to be 'outshined' by a candle.

Caution in all things that you do, so take a cnadle hold it in front of your chest and talk a little hike down any corridior in the world when the air is still, the Flame of the candle will reveal that there is a wind generated, actually a pressure differential, which you can prove is a vacuum space behind you, simply by walking backwards with the same candle held very close to your chest.
{That is why I caution you all first, if you try this I would suggest that you place something, a plate perhaps, against your chest, as a saftey precaution, to keep your clothing from catching fire when the flame of the candle is pushed, or pulled, towards them}

As for underwater Nigel apparently you do not have any idea of just how much money the American navy spent developing propellers that reduce the opportunity for cavitation, at pressure, under water.

They would not have spent that kind of money on a phenomenon that didn't exist.

Might I suggest that you do some further reseach Nigel, a it is not the math that is wrong, it is the "logical precepts" that direct math, that are flawed. {My opinion..........Only)

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Nigel Cook

When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Nigel Cook

Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equasions and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!???)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equasions and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!???)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!


The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.

Actually Messiah (Which you are not) it is as I have been telling the in these forums for some time now, it is heat that is the opposite energy form, to gravity!

That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.

Fundamentally gravity is a cooling force of energy, and has the lovely ability to actually capture HEAT, hence the inside temperature of a Black Hole, the Thermosphere of the planet Earth, the Phenomenon of the Solar observation of the Photosphere, the Corona, and the Chromosphere that demonstrate to us a cool layer of energetic activity sandwiched between two hotter layers, above and below.

This is furthered by the simplistic knowledge of a question I had posed in the previous PF as to find me a place where there is NO EMR,as it is what is actually known.

Known for some time now, from the old school photographics of astronomical observations, the negatives of the exposures where what was looked at/eyeballed and they represent the universe in it's proper light so to speak, with the bodies of mass being little black points, (there own Gravity hides them in the dark, if they are weak ones, like this planet) and the rest of the interstellar spaces being flooded with light/EMR

The Modu operandi of these phenomenons is what I had been writing about back in the mid, to late, 1990's, as it arises from the structuring of atoms themselves.

Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. That's all that is needed. There is no need to invoke some ehtereal pressure field that you claim causes gravity due to mass shielding. It is too excessive.

The paper begins: "General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas. This paper reviews and extends the straightforward mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity, published in Electronics World, resolving this problem."

You are welcome to your opinion. Without a cause of forces, however, we are stuck in the position that people are dropping out of science. Last year, the Physics Department at Essex University, UK, closed. The staff there were transferred to the Electronics Engineering department. This year, their maths department has been under threat. The whole problem is that they have masses of data from experiments and observations which cannot be explained, and students are resenting hard maths which lacks any proven basis.

[Brad_Ad23]

Or perhaps the recession speed is caused by something outside of GR as it currently stands. A closer analogy would have been the cosmological constant, however with the current theories dealing with dark energy it would seem to be some other force at work. As such that would be like saying GR failed to predict two magnets would attract each other so strongly.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel the one other thing that has been stated about gravity, for years now, is TRUE, it is an "Attraction to a Center", but the surface is not the center that it is using, the center is in the core of the planet.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]

This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.

[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.

To #1) Yes and no, dependant upon circumstances.

to #2) NO, electrons are attracted to other particles, and have interactions with them, ie; protons, but which is the attractor (outside of in a battery) is difficult to prove, because of the scale.

In what I understand about gravity, the universal constant of it is that it pulls all things to a common center, all energy that has/had been radiated.

In performing that function, it, in of itself, causes heat to be generated and radiated back out, in a cyclical nature, relative to the mass of the gravitational body/generator.

The Planet proves that, and the Moon, the Sun, Mass, the Stars, they all demonstrate the ability of being thermal capacitors, as that is what the cycle of gravitational activity performs, the capacitance of heat.

When it ends, it is in a "Big Crunch", but is is a very "COLD Big Crunch".

What is presently being thought of as 'Dark Energy', might simply be us, finally observing the activity of gravity that is the rebounding of the elastic of space itself, and the sighting of the evidence that the universe is indeed capable of reversing it's expansion, and is 'presently' (so to speak, as the distances invoke 'past' times) beginning, (or in the process of) to recontract(ing).


But all of this, is, by far, NOT all of the answer, not even close, lots of details is/are still missing.

BTW Nigel, if the medium is "Superfluid", as to afford 'no resistance' to motion, then there can be NO shadowing effect, as a shadowing effect MUST, and IS, an indication of a pressure differential.

But nice math work, just the same......a bit of the "Monte Carlo" method is it?

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]

Excellent! Thanks again!

It looks more like a synergistic arrangement as we could expect in a quantum equasion... leaving sequence and/or cause and effect out of the calculations. More like a support structure comprised of electromagnetic influence and gravitational influence.

It would still be interesting to do what I have already proposed which is to run a real-time superimposition of the electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields of a planetary body over one another during the introduction of a second, smaller mass.

There may be a clue as to which field creates which in the calculations of each of these field's rate of change.

Thanks again.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

12/04/2003

Nigel the reality of gravity is found in 'thermics', or 'thermology' the study of the flowing of energy. (As heat{ing})

In the thermosphere of the planet we find a layer of relatively high temperature space, ~2500 Degrees F, above drops to ~7 or 8 degrees K, and below it is a layer of the planets atmosphere that is something below 0.0 Degrees F. (my numbers are approximates as they are remembered 'roughly', but the point that they make still stands solid as evidence as we observe the inverse of the Solar effect inasmuch as we now see a layer of heat, sandwiched by two cooler layers)

We have a layer of space that is maintaining a temperature that is not generated by any activity that is measurable as "fire", yet we clearly know it is maintaining temperature over time, completely contrary to what the current laws of thermodynamics tells us, (all heat is radiant *) BUT a clear observable phenomenon, hence the laws of thermodynamics MUST be wrong! The planets observable characteristics PROVE that one.

What we end up finding out in this manner of observance of the universes operation of energy exchanges is that the moderator of motion is gravity, as it is the interface of the differential of energetic traveling, hence the motion of masses at speeds that are sub-light, as all of the energy travels at C (near enough, some exception) to generate the movements.

We hence see, that it is gravity that is actually the operator of time, (generator of it actually) time as it is measured by the motion/movements of masses.

As I had previously stated in other forums, “time is the illusion of movement” that is because the motion is an illusion, it is the moderation of energetic cycles that move the masses, but all of the energetic cycles occur at C, outside of masses, relative to C ( as propagating) inside masses.

(* It is, But there is a 'time' effect bearing upon the traveling of the energies at play, a generated ‘time’(ing) effect)

One body heats while the other cools because gravity will cause to arise an Energetic Ambience between the two masses, proportionately.

An “Energetic Ambience” (pressure) is normally measured using a thermometer, at least last time I heard anything about it…..Rumor had it?

It is a more complex answer then what you found Nigel, forgive me, it’s not my fault. (not yours either!)

[ranyart]

There are similar ideas to yours posted elswhere, and going back sometime ago?

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages11/25.html

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]
Really? I thought electrons had 'mass'?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable
quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.

Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.

So then 'Heat' as a "qualifiedly/quantifiable condition" of space,....is what?

Heat is actually referred to, or known as, in physics, "Ambient Energy Pressure", (AEP) as that is exactly what a thermometer measures.

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.

Aside form that, heat is also seen as a quality of matter, as in "That piece of steel is hot", as well as its (present) 'condition'.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.


I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

[Nigel]

Thanks for the interesting replies everyone!

The paper on the internet is the mechanism for gravity, and some of the replies touch on the other two forces of nature, which have different mechanisms and force strengths to gravity. The article in Electronics World deals with 4 forces, although two of those (electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces) are already unified in so-called electro-weak theory.

Hence, there are 3 basic forces:
Strong nuclear force
Gravitational force - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Electromagnetic force

I will briefly say something about the mechanisms and mathematical proofs I have published for the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces, since they relate to some of the replies above.

The mathematical proof I give (Electronics World, April 2003) demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force (137 times the electromagnetic force), while the electromagnetic force is the energy delivery by a random walk of electromagnetic fields between similar charges in the universe. Because the stars are receding, the electromagnetic momentum received continuously from spinning charges is less than they emit in any one place, so there is an asymmetry, causing a gravity shielding-attraction effect between dissimilar charges (hence electrostatic attraction) and an excessive exchange of momentum between similar charges (hence electrostatic repulsion).

The random walk occurs because a straight line summation would encounter equal numbers of positive and negative charges, thus cancelling out. When you work out the random walk, allowing for the expansion of the universe and the constant 377 ohm impedance of free space, you find that the electromagnetic forces are bigger than gravity by a multiplication factor equal to the square root of the number of charges in the universe; the proof is in the journal.

Therefore, there are three separate mechanisms accounting for 3 different basic forces. Sometimes in the past people have attributed the real mechanism of the strong nuclear force to electromagnetism, and had the paradox of a force calculation 137 times stronger than expected. This puzzled Feynman and many other maths wizards.

They should have studied Catt's research.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

On 9 July 1962, the United States wizards fired up a 1.44 megaton thermonuclear bomb on a missile, exploding at 400 km. Since the earth's atmosphere is insignificant at 100 km altitude, that was in space all right. Some people are prejudiced against explosions, so they say that every point in the universe sees every other point expanding around them. This is the worst sort of conjecture, especially when they falsely try to say that Hubble proved it. In fact, as my paper shows, the Hubble "law" (ratio of speed to distance of star = constant) is false in the sense that the distance will increase while the observed light is travelling to us, while the speed may remain the same. The whole of cosmology is jinxed by the discovery that the most distant supernovas do not slow down as predicted due to general relativity. My paper resolves that, but don't expect to see it being cited in any textbooks within the next century. Science journals are more fearful of the loss of reputation by publishing a hoax than they are of the supposed embarrassment of not publishing a genuine advance.

As for what is beyond the universe - I don't know. If the gravity mechanism is correct (I think it is because the logical proof has support from what we know about the fabric of space in electromagnetism, and also the Hubble equation when corrected gives rise to acceleration) then it looks as if the universe is an explosion in pre-existing space. Whether the pre-existing space is actually infinite, or not, I cannot even try to guess. I would like to see computer modelling of the universe using a nuclear fireball computer code. By fitting the results from a computer simulation for a 10^55 megatons detonation to what is observed for the universe, something useful might be learned. At present, that area is surrounded in secrecy.

[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

Current cosmological understanding, as I have read of it, is that the Big Bang was/is the explosion of space itself.

Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.

As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!

[Brad_Ad23]

demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force

But in your paper you claim that spacetime is continuous. Vacuum fluctuations manifest themsevles as a discreteness in the fabric of spacetime, commonly known as quantum foam. This is the central problem in quantizizing gravity and why such new developments as loop quantum gravity and any new theoretical models are tending towards a discerete spacetime that is actually formed, not independent.

Also,

Upon further reading of your paper, I must wholly protest the claim you make that the total Volume of spacetime is constant. That simply cannot be so in an expanding universe.

When you say H has units of acceleration, does that mean the units of H are meters per second per second?

v = rH = dr/dt. Hence: dt = dr/(rH).

So what you are saying then, is that the position function for r is

r = CeHt with C being some constant. So far that seems to be a nice acceleration model for the velocity. Of that I can say the math is sound going back and forth (though what an odd little constant that H is). I still have the rest of the maths to look through however. And again I urge one to remember what works in math does not always work in reality. It should be interesting to see where my analysis leads me.

Also, I hope you are not too offended by my criticisms. It is good measure to always meet new ideas with skepticism. So onward I go.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!

Does it require any more proof than already exists - or is it just a matter of getting the semantics correct?

If one defines 'exist' as 'having physical presence in the Universe', then it is already proven that space 'exists'. The fact we cannot discern any attributes other than that it has volume, location and the property of inertness (which - in itself - is a quality) is no more remarkable than the fact early man considered air to be 'nothing'.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.

If Big Bang is expanding into space, there must be space into which BB has not yet arrived. If BB 'created' the Universe, then there should be nothing outside of the volume of BB (even EMR) except more space.

Else BB 'creates' space on the fly.

NO??

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.

Sounds reasonable - however, there may be factors in the Universe which have a direct bearing upon our measurements and those factors may NEVER be observable within the lifetime of our species.

If the Universe (some prefer omniverse, but I choose to define Universe as "all which exists") is infinite and our BB is a local phenomenon, there may be neighboring cosmic engines (BB's) beyond our detection producing systems which make neutron stars look like sponge.

Dark Matter??

[Brad_Ad23]

Just to point out in the FAQ section, when you talk about energy. E = mc2 is the rest energy of any mass. E = 1/2 mv2 is the kinetic energy of a mass. The true Einstein equation is

E = mc2 + 1/2 mv2, or often times the addition of the kinetic energy is given as the gamma constant.


Meanwhile a continued analysis of the physics that underly your idea do not seem to mesh. However your basic premise is correct, the simple Hubble constant of proportionality is NOT correct. This is because of dark energy driving an acceleration. However, it does not by any means Einstein was wrong. As I stated above, this would be the equivalent to saying Einstein was wrong with GR because it fails to predict the strenght two magnets attract each other (or they repell each other even!) Again too, your idea of a constant volume of spacetime does imply that there is no expansion to the universe, rather mass is moving apart ever faster. However, this implies either that the universe is infinitly large and infinite in time, or it is static. And black holes still cannot be explained by your method, nor is gravitational deflection of light. Mere pressure alone cannot effect photons which only deflect because the geometry of spacetime makes the shortest distance that deflected point. The 'relativistic' mass (momentum) of the photon does not alone make it succeptible to gravity. Also, how does it explain gravity's own gravity? Too many unanswered questions that GR does answer.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
Sounds reasonable - however, there may be factors in the Universe which have a direct bearing upon our measurements and those factors may NEVER be observable within the lifetime of our species.

If the Universe (some prefer omniverse, but I choose to define Universe as "all which exists") is infinite and our BB is a local phenomenon, there may be neighboring cosmic engines (BB's) beyond our detection producing systems which make neutron stars look like sponge.

Dark Matter??

Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sorta has been answered, by humans.

It is the limitation upon our collective ability to know, it is found where the light ends, as we cannot "Knowledgably See" any farther.

The Universe, 'Omniverse' if you should wish, would itself not be infinite, but it would be 'within' that, whatever that actually is, the infinite,

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception

[Alias]

Forgive me for being out of my league, but my gut feeling has changed a bit in response to this thread. So here's my two cents, with the hope that it will further some of the theories in this discussion.

As the universe expands, it fills with "new" space.

Mass consumes space.

This would lead to gravitational effects at relatively small distances and expansion effects at larger distances based on the differences between the rate of "filling" and the rate of "consumption".

Also, the rate of consumption of space by particles of mass would determine the particular properties of the particle.

If these statements were true, would it not be possible to compute the volume and rate of consumption of space by a known mass by using the Gravitational constant alone?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sorta has been answered, by humans.

It is the limitation upon our collective ability to know, it is found where the light ends, as we cannot "Knowledgably See" any farther.

The Universe, 'Omniverse' if you should wish, would itself not be infinite, but it would be 'within' that, whatever that actually is, the infinite,

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception

APPLAUSE [:)]
Logic is our interpretation of the laws of nature. By observing, defining and comparing the properties of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables.

The concept of Infinity; however, lies beyond the domain of logic because it is not defined - and logic requires definition. It is not easy to fathom that although there is a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, there is no furthest point; and the very fact no ‘point of infinity’ exists serves only to validate the concept.

Infinity is not contrary to logic, it is just 'beyond its grasp'.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Alias

(SNIP) Forgive me for being out of my league, (CHOP)

WHY??? that is exactly where you need to go to learn, just like all of the rest of us, forgive HA! NEVER!

(Congratulate you, NOW that I could do!)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW gravity is a summing force, it always adds, it always adds more, it always comes out as either having more mass to play with, or as being gravitationally more powerful in the area of it's occupancy of space, hence it would be seen as the force that would win in the end of the universe as it always adds!

It uses the force of diffusion to spread heat, (and/or matter, re; explosions) but it always wins over itself in the end as it's ability to retrieve, over time, is greater then it's ability to expend, over time.

EDIT: TY Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accomodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

It uses matter to moderate the C factor in the 'energetic interchanges', that are the activities of gravity.


Have FUN!!

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accomodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

It uses matter to moderate the C factor in the 'energetic interchanges', that are the activities of gravity.


Have FUN!!

FINALLY ! ! !

Somebody realizes why I wear a tinfoil pyramid on my head to keep aliens from reading my thoughts...

Wheeeeeeeeew ! ! !

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
FINALLY ! ! !

Somebody realizes why I wear a tinfoil pyramid on my head to keep aliens from reading my thoughts...

Wheeeeeeeeew ! ! !

(PSssssssssssst Mess-i-ah! It's NOT working! they know about you! so use your secret powers to hide now!!)

DON'T THANK ME, THEY WILL FIND BOTH OF US THAT WAY!!





{Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, ad on, and on, etc, bye!}

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, there is a plethora of evidence that follows the logic of the reaoning for the Absorption of EMR by matter/mass. The Spectral absorption of EMR is well known in the evidence of the universe's light, an interaction of atoms, with the passing light.

It is thought that the re-emission is/would be found in a 'brightness' that should be detectable, even though it would be very subtle, as scattered in a larger range of waveform.

This is furthered by the fact of known knowledge of the Planets Apsorption of EMR, as Very long wave length, (radiowave) which would follow the rules of "Conservation of Energy" by compression of the waveform, to a higher level, for re-emittance as 'thermal' energy.

Or an "Ambient Energy Pressure signature", through the capacitance that is the activities of gravities inducement of thermal output.

It is a superimposition upon the thermal flow that is unseen, that is gravity, it is none the less detectable, you just have to know how.

Messiah, did your cap work?

Did you know I would write this?

Did you know that tomorrow is Good Friday? so all the people who Volonteer at the Soup Kitchens are taking a well deserved Break with there families?

DID you know?

[Messiah]

What we are discussing here are two very basic phenomenae:
1) Existence
2) Change (in position or condition)

Energy is simply another nomenclature for change - the act of (kinetic) or propensity (potential) for said phenomenon.

The photon theory of light believes photons actually travel (change in position of a particle)

It is my insane and totally unconventional belief that it is a change in condition (in the elements involved in the vector). A simple propagation.

Any comment??

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah

It is my insane and totally unconventional belief that it is a change in condition (in the elements involved in the vector). A simple propagation.

Is this meant to be a question?

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Is this meant to be a question?

No, the question was the last sentence...marked by punctuation '?'
I understand this is commonly used by convention.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
No, the question was the last sentence...marked by punctuation '?'
I understand this is commonly used by convention.


Thats what I understood, too, so that's why I asked what the question really was.

ANy comment?........No! as the statement doesn't make any real sense to me, as what we are discussing here is gravity, not "change", and how GRAVITY comes into being, and works.

Any Comments?

[FZ+]

If you want to carry out a private or personal conversation, use the pm system. That's what it is there for.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you want to carry out a private or personal conversation, use the pm system. That's what it is there for.

ok

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This is what I had originally written the other day, just that the disc drives on some of the computers here went wacky with the disc, telling me it needed "formating", so I post it just the same as I felt this one was written better then the one I did post, THANKS!

17/04/2003

There is a plethora of evidence to back up this logic in observation, the spectrographic nature of the readings of light, from distance, demonstrates the principals of the absorption of EMR, by matter, as it passes it.

The interaction is thought to project a lightening(Brightening) effect upon other waves of the spectrum, but The broadcast of that would make detection more difficult as the shading effects would be exceedingly subtle.

This is further enhanced as, principal of proof, by the 'common knowledge' of the Fact that the Planet is Known to Absorb (Very) long wave (radio) EMR.

This absorption phenomenon is held to the conservation of energy rule, by shifting, frame shifting actually, and it is re-emitted as higher waveform energies, as in heat(ing), by EMR emission.

Hence we have 'prior knowledge' of the activities of Gravity that makes evidence of the fact of it being a Super-Imposition upon the immediate, and long range, temperature environment, adjudicated in the EMR, by a mass.

Messiah, did your cap work?
Did you 'predict' I would write this today?
Or did you just know that I had done it, but didn't know how you knew that?
Or was it that the cap works?
Or it Friday tomorrow?
Good Friday?, and all the soup kitchens will be closed as the staff take a well deserved break with there families.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Funny, I mention the disc, now it is so badly damaged, by one of the computers there, scan disc does nothing for it, telling me it is "no good" any more, it was just fine the other day, it is only no good as a result of the disc drives, in the machines I use that are net linked operating, well, what, from afar, cause it certainly ain't me doing it, and this is about the four, or fifth disc, that this has happened to!

Seems that someone erases the FAT files on them, for me, how sad!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW this explaination does take everyone away from the chasm that had been previously there, but it only really brings it up to the abyss, actually, and the view from *here*, is even darker, then the previous one.

There is an answer, as there is a way to resolve all of this into something that works form origins in structure(s).

Till then.............

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force

But in your paper you claim that spacetime is continuous. Vacuum fluctuations manifest themsevles as a discreteness in the fabric of spacetime, commonly known as quantum foam. This is the central problem in quantizizing gravity and why such new developments as loop quantum gravity and any new theoretical models are tending towards a discerete spacetime that is actually formed, not independent.

Also,

Upon further reading of your paper, I must wholly protest the claim you make that the total Volume of spacetime is constant. That simply cannot be so in an expanding universe.

When you say H has units of acceleration, does that mean the units of H are meters per second per second?



So what you are saying then, is that the position function for r is

r = CeHt with C being some constant. So far that seems to be a nice acceleration model for the velocity. Of that I can say the math is sound going back and forth (though what an odd little constant that H is). I still have the rest of the maths to look through however. And again I urge one to remember what works in math does not always work in reality. It should be interesting to see where my analysis leads me.

Also, I hope you are not too offended by my criticisms. It is good measure to always meet new ideas with skepticism. So onward I go.

The vacuum flux is not the fabric of space. Nor is spacetime.

The vacuum flux is matter + antimatter creation for a brief time characterised by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its energy-time version.

Spacetime is what you get when you do four-dimensional geometry which treats the product of time and velocity of light as distance (time multiplied by velocity = distance, dimensionally).

H, Hubble constant, as stated in the paper and as defined by textbooks as velocity divided by distance, which has units of reciprocal seconds. This is not a true constant, because the stars will recede further while the light is in transit to us. The correct constant will be velocity divided by transit time of the light, and this ratio is acceleration. You will need to go through the paper step-by-step to appreciate the details, as it is not the sort of thing which can be grasped by scanning.

Where you say that what works in maths does not always work in reality, I agree. You get people in physics force-fitting superstring 26 dimensional tensors on to reality at the tax-payers expense (at least in the UK) for decades and failing. It is quaint to see how revered people like Archimedes are for mathematical proofs, but when it comes to the crunch, the big guys in the major scientific journals will not even read a proof. It is a bit like the problem Galileo had with the Church when they refused to put an eye to his telescope.

The existing empirical law philosophy can be supported by adding epicycles every time an error is seen, postponing progress indefinitely.

At the end of the day, proof can be ignored, so it has no real influence. It is a bit like the situation with the war with Iraq. British popular opinion was predominantly pacifist, but when you have dictators who simply ignore everything reasonable, you are eventually in a situation of facing the old dictum that "war is the extension of politics", and that nothing short of war will induce reason.

In the case of science, the superstring brigade will continue to consume taxpayers money in their Ivory Towers. The proven theory will be ignored for any reason they can think up, no matter how absurd.

The basic problem for me is that we live in an unscientific age, where the people who take the jobs of editors of scientific journals do so in the belief that their prejudices are of greater importance than facts.

[Brad_Ad23]

I agree on most of your points, however:

The vacuum energy does manifest itself all over the place. True it is seen in the creation of matter-antimatter pairs, but remember too that it can occur in energy, including gravity. This creates a discernable effect in any quantum theory of gravity that is referred to as quantum foam.

As for superstring theory, they're down to 11 dimensions now.

And I agree superstring theory will not be the final answer merely because it treats spacetime as an independent background. Other new theories such as the developing loop quantum gravity hold more promise.

And as I stated before, your basic premise of the Hubble constant not being in terms of velocity is a sound one, the methods and consequences of your procedure do not seem realistic.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
Thanks for the interesting replies everyone!

The paper on the internet is the mechanism for gravity, and some of the replies touch on the other two forces of nature, which have different mechanisms and force strengths to gravity. The article in Electronics World deals with 4 forces, although two of those (electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces) are already unified in so-called electro-weak theory.

Hence, there are 3 basic forces:
Strong nuclear force
Gravitational force - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Electromagnetic force

I will briefly say something about the mechanisms and mathematical proofs I have published for the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces, since they relate to some of the replies above.

The mathematical proof I give (Electronics World, April 2003) demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force (137 times the electromagnetic force), while the electromagnetic force is the energy delivery by a random walk of electromagnetic fields between similar charges in the universe. Because the stars are receding, the electromagnetic momentum received continuously from spinning charges is less than they emit in any one place, so there is an asymmetry, causing a gravity shielding-attraction effect between dissimilar charges (hence electrostatic attraction) and an excessive exchange of momentum between similar charges (hence electrostatic repulsion).

The random walk occurs because a straight line summation would encounter equal numbers of positive and negative charges, thus cancelling out. When you work out the random walk, allowing for the expansion of the universe and the constant 377 ohm impedance of free space, you find that the electromagnetic forces are bigger than gravity by a multiplication factor equal to the square root of the number of charges in the universe; the proof is in the journal.

Therefore, there are three separate mechanisms accounting for 3 different basic forces. Sometimes in the past people have attributed the real mechanism of the strong nuclear force to electromagnetism, and had the paradox of a force calculation 137 times stronger than expected. This puzzled Feynman and many other maths wizards.

They should have studied Catt's research.

Thank you Nigel.

These explainations deserved a reprint in your thread here!!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So I wonder, if your explaination does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Don't mean to be a nag, but, still waiting...........tick.........tick..........ok!

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

This is further enhanced as, principal of proof, by the 'common knowledge' of the Fact that the Planet is Known to Absorb (Very) long wave (radio) EMR.

This absorption phenomenon is held to the conservation of energy rule, by shifting, frame shifting actually, and it is re-emitted as higher waveform energies, as in heat(ing), by EMR emission.

Hence we have 'prior knowledge' of the activities of Gravity that makes evidence of the fact of it being a Super-Imposition upon the immediate, and long range, temperature environment, adjudicated in the EMR, by a mass.

Messiah, did your cap work?
Did you 'predict' I would write this today?
Or did you just know that I had done it, but didn't know how you knew that?
Or was it that the cap works?

Is EMR particle phenomenon or propagation?
No, the cap didn't work, so I decided to stop thinking (can't read what is not there)
YES, I predicted your response. I answered it before your post.
#CFCFCF

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So I wonder, if your explaination does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?

I'm glad that you see that it has structure. Other people don't, e.g.:

Decision on manuscript 2003-04-03576
Sent: 24/04/2003 11:49
Importance: Normal
April 24, 2003


... Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Solution to a problem with general relativity"...

... I hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere...

Yours sincerely

Karl Ziemelis
Physical Sciences Editor, Nature


The interesting thing is that they will not send for peer review a proof. They are ingenious enough to fear that a referee might not be able to find a flaw in a proof, leaving them forced to print it. Notice the kindly comment that Dr Ziemelis makes, hoping that someone else will have the guts to publish it. The curious thing is that science has reached the stage that Galileo was in when he wrote to Kepler: "The Professor here refuses to look through my glass." They can sense that the paper would upset an apple cart, just as the Catholic Philosophy Professor in Galileo's day, and they place their commitment to culture above that to scientific objectivity. They are afraid that publishing something is dangerous.


[?]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
Is EMR particle phenomenon or propagation?
No, the cap didn't work, so I decided to stop thinking (can't read what is not there)
YES, I predicted your response. I answered it before your post.
#CFCFCF

WHERE?

What I am calling a 'phenomenon' is simply something that we can measure, a propagation if you wish, something that is going on, that we can percieve, measure, and, hopefully, explain to understand it's "Raison d'etre" and/or "Modus Operandi"

Nice hide, you almost caught me!

Nigel I wonder if it's fear, the absence of the time to explain why they might not see the same result you do, the absence of re$ources to be able to have everything they get Peer reviewed, hence would want for you to have referees available, to them, beforehand, as in to demonstrate that you have passed an 'informal' method of peer review. It show it to have some semblence of validity, inasmuch as you have already been able to convince others of it's worth.

But in the present political climate, well, saftey first!

Strike a match, that is a form of anti-gravity, same energy as gravity, just travelling in the opposite direction, using a different 'shape' as one travels away from a sphere, the other towards, layering like 'papier mache', over the surface of the sphere.

There may be another type of "Anti-gravity" that is actually the removal of the meduim of propagation, the EMR field that is spacial, as is 'sorta proven' out, presently, by a Black Hole's activity.

Glad you responded though, Thanks!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

2003-04-26

There’s an equation from cosmology that is something like Gm/2r (or r2, something like that) that has an application in chemistry, or the understanding of the nature of chemistry, from a gravitational viewpoint.

Draw a circle, and fill it with a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you will have The three states of matter, but notice the relative densities of the matter in the space, cause the problem is that, mathematically, you will ‘reletivise’ out the differentiations, that the three states present, by means of “gravitationally regulated specializations of matter”.

This is actually the reason for the error in the weighting of Venus, it’s gaseous atmosphere is differentiated, gravitationally, because it is a gas!

The key to ‘seeing it, in this light’ is found in the EMR, and understanding that it is EMR interaction that regulates atomic/molecular spacing, one of those regulating factors is the one we call heat, and all heat(ing) is a function of gravitationally induced friction(s).

Don’t be fooled, gases are known to rebound, Very Well hence very low friction interaction coefficients.

Liquids demonstrate similar energetic interactions, on scale, the absolute fluidity effects seen in the flow of water, Gazillions of little marbles rolling around, pressurizing themselves and NOT generating very much heat from that, never mind the obvious lack of an increase in friction coefficients, based upon the fact of pressurization, to great degrees in the depths of the Ocean, Marianas (SP?) trench deep

The friction environment of atoms is gravitationally regulated, the last being solids, where gravity takes over ‘Dominion’ completely, at this stage, coefficients of friction take on new roles, as more the capacitance/assembledgecapacitor of heat itself. It is at this stage that the Equation takes rule, and the third level of the “Gravitational Collusion” takes place.

If we had a car, on the earth, the coefficients of friction of the wheel’s bearings, are from the ‘weighed’ mass, here on Earth, go to the moon and the coefficients of friction drop, relative to the moons gravity.
(the torque induced friction remain relatively the same, but there would be less, as a compensation of the Less ‘Inertial’ mass environment, soooo……..:-{)

Mathematics is “cool” as it allows us to measure the minute differences.

In a gas the gravitational environment is behaving in a dualistic manner inasmuch as it is both trying to fly apart, by well ‘energetically balanced’ rebounds, and yet still ‘coheres’, as a gas, by ‘gravitational environmenting’ (Spell checker doesn’t like that word!)

Being as such, measuring the gravity of Venus, would need that the nature of the gases contribution to the Total(s) , as gravity Always SUMS, of the mass as ‘reality inclusive’, not solely on a “perceptual” (Visibly measurable) defined basis.

Gravities neat, complicated though, that why it’s taken so long to figure it out. Humanity needed to accumulate enough Known things, before, all the pieces could be fitted together.


C YA (Disliked that one too, but who am I to be prejudicial, soooo………..!)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

26/04/2003

It is self evident in the phase transition that steel undergoes, when presented with a driver for the AEP. (Ambient Energy Pressure)

A torch flame, really a source of EMR, as the com(bine){BOOM)bustables are simply in a process of emitting quantities of EMR, cause a rise in the AEP of the immediate placement of the radiator of EMR (Put the torch head here, to heat(ing)) such that the energetic cycling, that is the function of the component parts of atoms, gains enough EMR, to cycle fast enough, to become an emitter of enough strength, as to cause the Gravitational spatializing energy to subside, and it turns liquid.

This is as a result of the gravitational (Spherical) wave front’s predominance shifting from an external shell, surrounding the atom, to a facial shell in a liquid, to an internal shell in a gas.

It is of noteworthiness to see that gases are so spatially reactive to temperature, AEP, as that helps us to realize that it is the gravitational binding that is what is the precursor (aider and abettor) to the valence shell bonds, that will form, given the proper temperature, and pressure, conditions. (To liquefy, or solidify, must lose AEP)

And that the spatial nature is definitely temperature dependant, the literal spacing of atoms/molecules being well regulated by those two qualities.

Hence all phase transitions of matter are gravitationally regulated, as I had stated previously in PF 2.0, Gravity if a variable force.

Gravity moderates heat(ing), the Neutron is the ‘thermal’ particle, (Heat(ing) is interacting/cyclic EMR) and the other forces, positive, and negative, (Proton and Electron, respectively) spark at us. (With a quality of heating, as it is still EMR)

This is still a function of Structure, sooooooo……………-:{)

More?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If you can grasp the above then you can realise that it is the very thin covering of water, its moderation of the AEP's G/TC (Gravity/Thermal Cycle)that is the 'responcible party' (Operand) of the cause of the eruption/exuding of the Magnetic field that the Earth has. (Van Allen Belts, for all you older people!)

It is also the reason why the Mag. field of Venus is so small, (Gaseous outer coverning, moderates the AEP G/TC differently) and why Mars, with very little atmosphere and no water, (Liquid form) it's AEP G/TC is at such as rate as to not cause eruption/exudance of a 'magnetosphere'. (Least not a strong one like Earth's)

Funny for me, when it goes quiet like this, is it a sign? (ooooooops thats a question for the "Ask a stuuuuupid Quetion thread")

EDITED FOR SCHPEILEINGS

[dr-dock]

yo man!!
i don't mean to be root but:

v=dx/dt works only for v=const
a=dv/dt works only for a=const

if it wasn't so then it would have been:
dx=vdt+tdv <=> x=vt
dv=adt+tda <=> v=at

and F=ma is not true either even if a=d(dx/dt)/dt
in the gravity or the coulomb's law if you put M,m=const or q,Q=const
you'll get Fxx=const.then put x=f1(t) and F=f2(t) and look for
d(dx/dt)/dt=ax and d(dF/dt)/dt=aF you'll get:

ax=-(1/2F)(xxaF+3VxVF)<>F/m

where Vx=dx/dt and VF=dF/dt.

G is not gravity constant but gravity proportionality cause you can put G=F(x/m)(x/M).you see G is function of variables.why would it be const?

see what they publish?

but what to do.IT'S HARD TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERMENT IS WRONG.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there.....care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there.....care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?
you have to be simple in English conversation with me cause it's not my native language.
i'll just assume that 'extrapolate' is something like explain.

i saw the web page with the published doc (the prove) and the equations used there.i don't agree with any equation there except the one for the gravity law.i just wanned to point out what i don't agree with and why.try to redo the calculus using x=vt and v=at and don't mention Hubble.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OH!, So sorry.

In what I have attempted to put forward, there is a furthering of the established proof, in the evidence that I had presented in PF 2.0, when I had pointed out the re-testing of G, that had occurred back in the mid nineties.

One of the approaches, that was Novel, was the floating of the devise in a liquid medium, (Of which much is made of the temperatures) and it has registered a Consistent Variation, to the Known value of G, every time it has been tested. (Consistent, also, in the degree of variance.)

It is Because it is a liquid, that it alters the gravitational rate(s), such that, the object that floats in it, imparts some energy to the AEP, which is 'within cycled', as to tensor the edges better.

(How self centered of it....tee hee hee hee)

Gravities activities, at play!

They have had that Proof for about eight (8) years now, and they just didn't realize what it was telling them, evidence of the "proof" of it's actions, in matter(s) form(s). BTW does include the Plasma state.

Ps PF 2.0 Available from Greg, the Host, $20.00 (US)......"Cheep Cheeeeeap" say's the Rob/in (hood?)/(ed?)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummmm, I suspect, but it is only a suspicion, that's why they call them "Previously Unrecognised" and "Self Evident Truth(s)"

Clearly no one is at any fault for not having recognized this understanding, not in the Scientific Community. (at least)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is a test that can be done that furthers this proving of the realities of the G/T C and AEP functioning, (heck the fact that you can see col ours is proof of it) but it requires some test equipment, has anyone seen my flashlight?

[Royce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.

Originally posted by Royce

#1) Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
#2) I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?

There is no vacuum formed behind me when I walk along a corridor. Similarly, there is no snowploughing of air in front of me.

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Take air pressure. I point out that the energy needed to create a vacuum equal to the volume you leave behind you (your cross-sectional area multiplied by the distance you travel) is more than your legs can deliver. You can only move, therefore, by virtue of the fact that the air moves out of your way, flowing around you from front to behind as you move. This is vital.

[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Royce
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.


The air in front of me will not know that I am coming until I push into it. It does not accumulate against me like the blade of a bulldozer pushing snow, it flows around me!

All I can suggest is that either your corridor is so small that you take up both the entire width and height, or else the corridor is normal and you are not!

Seriously, where you mention the submarine you should remember that water is virtually incompressible. It is possible to make a vacuum in air, and in water. It does not occur when you walk or swim. It does not occur when an aeroplane flies or when a submarine goes, despite the fact that it can happen in special cases. The aeroplane flies because it pushes down on the air. Aeroplanes can fly upside down. It has been shown that the old textbook stuff about a vacuum on upper wing surfaces is really just a mathematical con.

The best way to think about flight is when you fly a simple kite in a wind. The wind pressure upward on the lower surfaces exceeds those downwards on the upper surfaces, so the net force is up, counteracting gravity. The aeroplane works the same way. You make a wind by going forward into stationary air.

The formula for wind pressure is p = 0.5 x air density x speed squared. The speed is the net speed of the plane into the air. If there is a hurricane blowing towards the plane, it can remain static over one place like a helicopter. There is no worry about whether the speed is due to the aeroplace moving or the air moving. Therefore, static air is equivalent to moving air. All that matters is a net asymmetry in pressure. Air density does not vary to any significant extent: it is pushing into air, not causing a vacuum, which causes flight.

In any case, this foray into hydrodynamics strengthens my proof of the cause of gravity. People who think that they leave a vacuum in their wake cannot really be answered effectively.

[zz)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.

It is air drag or dynamic pressure which resists motion. Air drag depends on your relative speed in the air.

It is properly called dynamic or drag pressure.

The reason for drag is the momentum change when an excess of air particles hit you on one side, not the normal air pressure.

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Any air density change at walking speed is therefore going to be less than 1 %. You can accurately calculate the air resistance on the basis that the density and static pressure remain completely constant in this situation: the air drag is not due to the normal air pressure, but to the excess kinetic energy of air molecules hitting you in the direction of your motion relative to the air. Drag pressure, q = (Du^2)/2, where D is air density, and u is relative velocity.


What is important is that pressure considerations allow the calculation of the force of gravity as the effect of the Hubble expansion on the fabric of space.

Much the same thing can be seen in a sink of washing up liquid, when the bubbles that are formed nearby accelerate together; the same happens to bubbles floating on any liquid. In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Therefore, the lemonade bubbles are pushed against the sides of a rigid glass by analogy to the reason we are pushed down by gravity.

Nigel

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

Prove it to yourself, clean a glass thoroughly, and notice that it does NOT form those bubbles. (Have worked in both Bars and Restaurants, sooooo.........it's 'old school' waitress's knowledge!)

They stick to the sides because that is where they form, as a result of a particle of dirt, and when conditions are correct, they dislodge, and float up, through the liquid.

Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.

I would agree that at times, it is small, you walking down a corridor slooooowly, but to extrapolate it out to the Hubble expansion?, speeds at how high a rate? can it still be ignored at those levels?

I suspect not.

EDIT EVERYTHING BELOW THIS___________LINE

Originally posted by Nigel

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Then the idea of holding a 'lit candle'*, as I had responded to you in the first place, wouldn't work, because, according to what you tell me, here, the 7 ft/sec that a human can walk is simply to slow, even though if you actually try it, forwards, and backwards, walking, IT works!

Hummmm, curious!


* Remember that doing this can pose a danger, protect yourself from the risks of setting yourself on fire, when trying something like this.

[Nigel]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
[B]Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

...Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.



The bubbles form inside the bottle when you take the cap off, and continue to slowly come out of solution for several minutes. The cause is carbon dioxide dissolved and maintained under pressure, which cannot remain dissolved when the pressure is reduced.

Add some sugar to the your lemonade and you will prove this: the liquid becomes saturated in sugar, and releases all of the remaining CO2 very quickly.

Make some bubbles by stirring your coffee. The bubbles will attract to other nearby bubbles, accelerate together and join up. Each bubble indents the surface of the liquid on which it floats, like a floating football. They shield one another from the all round pressure of the fluid. I have video of soap bubbles attracting and joining up. I will add it to the internet page shortly. But anyone can see the same thing in a sink very easily.

This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation. This is equivalent to saying that in facing directions they shield one another from the push of the surrounding rubber sheet.

This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

With regard to the walking in the air, my posting said that motion in air is impossible without the flow of air around me as I walk. If the air did not flow around me, there would be a vacuum created behind me, and an accumulation of air in front. I stated that air must flow. You now say I said the opposite!

It would be more interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanism of gravity is correct. I am certainly not doing this for personal gain, but to hit back at people who think that physics is about stagnation and status quo. If you are happy with "law of nature" causes of gravity, good for you.
[:)]

[schwarzchildradius]

First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H2/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc2=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Hence my responce. See's ya tends to want to sidetrack the 'perception' though.

Originally posted by Nigel
This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation.

Yes, an explaination that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Originally posted by Nigel
This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


You might have found some things Nigel, but I do NOT think you found the "Proof of Gravity", But that's not your fault, nor mine.

(perhaps you should read some of what I have written, here/in, this thread)

[Nigel]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [/i

Yes, an explaination that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the [i]analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


Hey, what I'm saying is that Einstein is right so far as he goes, but he can go further. He didn't because sadly Hubble only discovered the recession business after Einstein had made the mistaken prediction of a static universe, based on what was known in 1915.

Einstein's maths is on the right thread in general relativity, in introducing gravity to space-time by curvature of space.

My mathematical proof, on the webpage, does prove the cause of gravity in a series of steps. The cause for the curvature is the inward directed pressure of space in reaction to the big bang.

In the Electronics World proof, I show that you can specify either a mass or an energy equivalent of space for the continuity equation.

In other words, you can have either:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Volume of matter it contains) + (Volume of fabric of space it contains);

or you can (by E = mc^2) use the equivalent expression:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Energy content of matter) + (Energy content of the fabric of space).

Either way, you get inward pressure from the fabric of space due, equal and opposite to the matter that is going away from you in the big bang.

If you take some clothes out of a suitcase, an equal volume of air goes in the opposite direction (into the suitcase!), and volume is conserved. You might object that air density changes and a vacuum forms if you rip the clothes out very rapidly, but I think you understand where the analogy is going. You send all the stars off in all directions around us. They are vacating a volume in space time.

Continuity of the fabric of space and the matter in space requires that the reduction in matter content per unit volume due to Hubble expansion be compensated by an inward motion of the fabric of space.

Hence, an all round pressure due to the fabric of space itself, which when calculated turns out to be the force of gravity complete with inverse square law and correct constant.

Just to round off, here's a quotation from Edgar Allan Poe's poem Eureka, first published in June 1848:

"... of gravitation? Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted that these laws he guessed - these laws whose investigation disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in going behind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics. Yes! - these vital laws Kepler GUESSED - that is to say, he imagined them."

Right. Kepler guessed all sorts of shapes for the orbit of Mars until he found a fit with the ellipse. He never proved that the orbit is an ellipse. Newton just used Kepler's empirical guessed approximation. The need for a proof of the gravity law, plus constant, is not an alternative to an existing proof.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H2/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc2=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.

Thanks for congratulations. I do not base anything on Friedmann. I do not get density equals (3/8) of anything. You are right that I get a value twice the density that the Newtonian theory predicted (disproved by the experimental discovery of supernova recession speeds at great distances). The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.

This is an important second prediction for my proof. The first prediction was that the most distant stars are not being retarded by gravity, because gravity is a PUSHING effect, not a magic elastic band pulling effect (that violates Hooke's law, whereby the elastic band force would increase with distance instead of decreasing by the inverse square law).

When you say field equation you are confused. I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red. You substitute my formula for G into the field equation at the end. It is the source for the field equation's G and inverse square law, not a result of the field equation!

The important fact is the mechanism for gravity, which is proven uniquely.

Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.

It is subjective. As a mathematical description it is better than Newton's, because it allows for the correct conservation of the gravitational field potential energy. However, it contains no proof of the cause of gravity.
[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel I agree that Gravity is a pressure inwards, it is the force of contraction actually, and is opposed by, as I have tried to evidence in my signature, the force of 'diffusion' and/or 'expansion', so I got's no problemo with that part, BUT....

If you go to your local gas station, (I suppose they have those where you are too) here in Canada, they will tell you that the "volume (pumped is) corrected to 15 degrees C" because the underground tanks, that they store the gasoline, in is in the ground, below eight feet, and 15 degrees C, is the CONSTANT temperature, down there, winter (In Canada) and summer.

If you check you will find the the Earth's temperature has a very consistant increase, measurable, to depth increase, Gravities activities all the way down to the "Center of Gravity" of the Planet.

In one of the mines, in SA, the temp has been recorded as 56 degrees C, at better then a mile down.

Those parts must be accounted for as well Nigel.

Someone wanted to tell me that "substance state" (as I have explained in this thread) was NOT a gravitational state, as it didn't change the "pathway of the Light", but the reality is that it does.

It passes throught several miles of Atmosphere, and still provides Lumens per sq. ft, yet in penetrating ~1500 ft of Water it is diffused to oblivion, the Lights Go OUT!!, the energy diffused out of the pathways, that the light followed, differently from in the Atmosphere, and yess, volume makes a differance.

Notice, that at a depth of water, the coefficients of friction do not (largly) increase even thought the density of the water HAS.

Sooo............

[schwarzchildradius]

Friedmann must recieve credit for (in 1922) finding the general solutions to the field equations written by Einstein. His solutions predicted exponentially expanding, static, and collapsing universes.

You have not discovered a necessarily changing gravitational constant, for your equation can be derived easily algebraically by assuming that the internal energy of the universe (mc2) is equal to the gravitational energy (GMm/r). The only difference between this and the Friedmann critical density is that in your version you use mc2 where Friedmann assumes that the energy of expanding space is the same as local kinetic energy, or KE=mv2/2 (where v=c). There are some cosmological theories with changing gravitational constants, but such a feature is not necessary to describe the dynamic behavior of the universe.
The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.
That's only true relative to our position, but in an isotropic, homogeneous universe there are further surrounding stars.
The first prediction was that the most distant stars are not being retarded by gravity, because gravity is a PUSHING effect, not a magic elastic band pulling effect (that violates Hooke's law, whereby the elastic band force would increase with distance instead of decreasing by the inverse square law).
gravity is not a force at all, just the effect of the geometry of space on matter, and vice versa.
I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red.
you can do that but I dont see how you could come up with anything more than conservation laws that way.
Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.
as shown by Friedmann

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gravity operates by method of 'frame shifting'.

That is probably the most valid reason why you have such difficulty with it's spatial qualities/quantities, you have no referance for what, or how, "Frame Shifting" is done/is!

Hence it would be difficult to answer a question, about gravity, (prove it) if you didn't know how that worked.



EDIT SP!!!!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Gravity operates by method of 'frame shifting'.

That is probably the most valid reason why you have such difficulty with it's spatial qualities/quantities, you have no referance for what, or how, "Frame Shifting" is done/is!

Hence it would be difficult to answer a question, about gravity, (prove it) if you didn't know how that worked.



EDIT SP!!!!

You're welcome to your opinions. In fact since I prove the mechanism of gravity step-by-step, you are not talking the same language that I am. If you think that the cause of gravity is the principle of relativity, you're right that I won't give an answer. What I do answer is the cause of gravity.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

You're welcome to your opinion

Couldn't agree with you more Nigel.

As for the 'cause' of gravity, it is a Generated force, and the Modus Operandi of that generation I too, will not reveal, well, then again, considering the idiocy of the 2 (two.....or more??) Politicians, that I suspect are the responcible parties for the absence in my life, I might just tell, but someone, and somewhere, else. (No offence Greg)


Been nice talking to you though Nigel, and all of the rest of the posters in this thread, nice read count too. THANKS ALL!

[schwarzchildradius]

how do you identify the cause of gravity from what you've done? Simply because the critical density is related to the gravitational constant does not make G a variable.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
how do you identify the cause of gravity from what you've done? Simply because the critical density is related to the gravitational constant does not make G a variable.

I don't derive, use, or mention the critical density, so forget it.

A volume of 1 cubic metre contains two things: matter (m plus E/c^2) and the dielectric of the fabric of space. (The fabric of space is what gives rise to electromagnetic constants for the permittivity, impedance, etc., of space.)

This statement of volume as a sum is a continuity equation. Hence, if you take matter out of a 1 cubic metre volume, you're going to have the dielectric of space flow into that volume.

Understand this as follows: if you are walking down a corridor, then 70 litres of air is being pushed out of the way, and is in effect flowing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION to your motion.

Thus, the accelerative nature of the recession speeds of matter around us in all directions, results in an inward pressure of the fabric of space. The total inward directed dielectric volume is exactly equal to the outward matter volume, and the inward dielectric acceleration is exactly equal to the outward acceleration of matter.

I prove that we can calculate gravity with these facts:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

If you work through the above cited complete calculation, you can verify it yourself. Gravity is the shielding by mass from the all-round dielectric pressure. The earth shields us partly from the upward space pressure, but not from the downward space pressure. So apples accelerate downwards.

There is a problem that you appear to think that the "critical density", which is a factor of two different from the real density, has something to do with my calculations. It does not. It is like comparing chalk and cheese. The critical density is wrong and this will eventually be proved by astronomy as the Hubble constant and density parameters are observed more accurately.

Nigel

[:)]

[schwarzchildradius]

OK, I guess I dont get how you're using the word 'dielectric'
A dielectric is a non-conductor of electric currents, usually used in a capacitor to change the properties of the capacitor.
This statement of volume as a sum is a continuity equation. Hence, if you take matter out of a 1 cubic metre volume, you're going to have the dielectric of space flow into that volume.
If you take out the m in a volume of space, you still have the E/c2, which contributes to the gravitational potential. How do you arrive at flowing space from this fact?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK, I guess I dont get how you're using the word 'dielectric'
A dielectric is a non-conductor of electric currents, usually used in a capacitor to change the properties of the capacitor.

If you take out the m in a volume of space, you still have the E/c2, which contributes to the gravitational potential. How do you arrive at flowing space from this fact?

The dielectric of space has an impedance of 377 ohms, and a characteristic velocity of 300,000 km/s. Alternatively, you can specify the two dielectric qualities as permittivity and permeability, which are respectively the electric and magnetic constants found in the force equations for electrostatics and magnetism.

A capacitor with a vacuum between its two plates charges and discharges with the dielectric of space. Electrolytic capacitors have greater capacitance since there is a fluid between the plates in addition to the dielectric of space.

An apple on a table, with a chair beside it, might either fall 30 cm on to the chair, or it might fall 100 cm on to the floor. The concept of gravitational potential energy is vital when considering the conservation of total energy. Potential energy is dealt with by general relativity. The cause of gravity gives the source for the gravitational field, which in turn permits gravitational potential energy to be calculated.
[:)]

[schwarzchildradius]

OK now I see where you're coming from.

But the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability are fundamental (geometric). Why would impedence properties of space affect gravity; it ought to be (and is) the other way around - mass warps space causing light to change velocity vector.

If you're going to model space as a current, then the problem is that you've got to assign some non-zero quantity to its mass. A flowing current of space also violates the second principle of relativity, as several reference frames will not be equivalent. If space has negative mass, or if space generates more space, which it might, the flowing space hypothesis may be provable. Today, it's not, but not un-proven either.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

If you work through the above cited complete calculation, you can verify it yourself. Gravity is the shielding by mass from the all-round dielectric pressure. The earth shields us partly from the upward space pressure, but not from the downward space pressure. So apples accelerate downwards.

I gotta tell ya Nigel, I find this one interesting, as this seems to allude to the idea that if you find yourself a deep enough well, then drop an apple down it, the apple's acceleration, due to gravity, should slow down, on it's way down.

Personally, I don't believe that, not for a second.

Secondly, if the Earth is "shielding" then I should be able to find a mine deep enough, to be able to weight less, then on the surface, as I should be then shielded from the 'pressure of space'.

Never heard of, seen, known, of any reporting of anything like this occuring anywhere....not on this planet.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
I gotta tell ya Nigel, I find this one interesting, as this seems to allude to the idea that if you find yourself a deep enough well, then drop an apple down it, the apple's acceleration, due to gravity, should slow down, on it's way down.

Personally, I don't believe that, not for a second.

Secondly, if the Earth is "shielding" then I should be able to find a mine deep enough, to be able to weight less, then on the surface, as I should be then shielded from the 'pressure of space'.

Never heard of, seen, known, of any reporting of anything like this occuring anywhere....not on this planet.

You have definately the wrong IDEA.

Of course, if we could dig a hole to the center of the earth, we would find out that in the center of gravity of the earth, everything is weightless!
But in calculating this effects, when going down to the center, the fact is that Newton's law and this new gravity thing (which is not a new theory, but just an addition to the law we already knew, but just explains what causes gravity) come up with the exact same results (as should be expected of course)!

The thing is of course, if you envision gravity as an 'attracting' force from all matter that acts on all matter, or as a 'pulling' force, from all surrounding space and gravity occuring as the shielding effect, are - while being conceptually different - in their effects and observed and measured phenomena, exactly the same!
It is more a choice of what do you think is more appealing. Conceptualize it as a pulling force, caused by all matter, or conceptualize it as a pushing force from surrounding (dielectric) space, where the net force of attraction between masses occur as the shielding effect of matter.

The difference is only the concept, but all observed and measureable results are entirely the same, and describe the same law of gravity!

Since Einstein we already know that space and matter are in fact two aspects of the same thing. We can for example conceptualize matter as curvature of space.

This whole new theory, therefore does not replace the known laws of gravity, but only provide a different conceptual model for the 'causes' of gravity. The law itself (in numerical predictions about how the attraction between masses occur) is exactly the same!
It's the same thing, explained in different (complementary) terms!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens

Of course, if we could dig a hole to the center of the earth, we would find out that in the center of gravity of the earth, everything is weightless!

Sorta "silly" on my part, care to prove that?

See, if you 'weight' the Earth, the weighting tells us that the densities of the rock that compose the planets mass must be higher then the densities that we find at the surface, hence the rock towards, the center must be denser (or the calculations are somehow, wrong) such that the idea of 'weightlessness', at the center, probably doesn't actualy work out to be that, for other reasons, small reasons.

By God's Grace I have an idea what Nigel is talking about, but as it has been stated, if it had been that simple, it would have already been discovered.

Aside from that, what I tell of, reveals the "why" of colors in life, as per the gravitational inter-activities of atoms, and light in addition to the explaining why we have 'three' (four actually, plasma) states of matter as they are arising, again, from a gravitational point of view.

Has Nigel done that?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Sorta "silly" on my part, care to prove that?

See, if you 'weight' the Earth, the weighting tells us that the densities of the rock that compose the planets mass must be higher then the densities that we find at the surface, hence the rock towards, the center must be denser (or the calculations are somehow, wrong) such that the idea of 'weightlessness', at the center, probably doesn't actualy work out to be that, for other reasons, small reasons.

The proof is very simple, although for an actual mathematical proof, it requires you to understand some math.

The proof was already delived by Newton. In our analogy of a hole we dig to the center of earth, the effective force of gravity excerted on our body is equal to the force excerted by the mass-sphere at the center of gravity of the earth, and radius R (our position relative to earth's center of gravity). This simply means that the surrounding sphere above us, contributes exactly a net force of zero to the total force. In trying to understand this, you must think of taking a small part of that sphere, and draw the lines from that part to your position, and the into the opposite part of the sphere.
Now it can be calculated that the two opposing parts of this surrounding sphere, exactly contribute zero to the net force of gravity excerted on your body, and that this can be done for the sphere in total (adding up all the parts).

This means, that the mass-sphere which is excerting a net force on you when going down from earth's surface downto the centre of gravity, will shrink, as part of the outer sphere of the earth (all matter that is at a larger distance from the centre of gravity as yourself) will not contribute any longer to the net force of gravity.

In the center of gravity therefore, one is weighless.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
The proof is very simple, although for an actual mathematical proof, it requires you to understand some math.

The proof was already delived by Newton. In our analogy of a hole we dig to the center of earth, the effective force of gravity excerted on our body is equal to the force excerted by the mass-sphere at the center of gravity of the earth, and radius R (our position relative to earth's center of gravity). This simply means that the surrounding sphere above us, contributes exactly a net force of zero to the total force. In trying to understand this, you must think of taking a small part of that sphere, and draw the lines from that part to your position, and the into the opposite part of the sphere.
Now it can be calculated that the two opposing parts of this surrounding sphere, exactly contribute zero to the net force of gravity excerted on your body, and that this can be done for the sphere in total (adding up all the parts).

This means, that the mass-sphere which is excerting a net force on you when going down from earth's surface downto the centre of gravity, will shrink, as part of the outer sphere of the earth (all matter that is at a larger distance from the centre of gravity as yourself) will not contribute any longer to the net force of gravity.

In the center of gravity therefore, one is weighless.

As I had stated, could you please PROVE that!

By God's Grace, I already know the 'math', that, all by itself is NOT proof, merely 'speculation' tied/backed up with/by a numerical POSSIBILITY that remains UNTESTED, ergo Unproven!

Aside from the simplest of notions, that that particular notion, could be compeltely wrong!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As I had stated, could you please PROVE that!

By God's Grace, I already know the 'math', that, all by itself is NOT proof, merely 'speculation' tied/backed up with/by a numerical POSSIBILITY that remains UNTESTED, ergo Unproven!

Aside from the simplest of notions, that that particular notion, could be compeltely wrong!

What PROOF then do you want? Dig a hole in my backyard that extends to the center of gravity of earth, and their test for weighlensness in the center of the earth?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
What PROOF then do you want? Dig a hole in my backyard that extends to the center of gravity of earth, and their test for weighlensness in the center of the earth?


Hey sounds cool, gonna "Go for it"??

Yes, I realize that it is difficult to prove, hence my reservation for anything that does not account for what is the observed reality, that being the known density of the rocks, and how that indicates that there is a mechanism that hasn't yet been fully explained, properly. (I suspect!)


EDIT SP

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hey sounds cool, gonna "Go for it"??

Yes, I realize that it is difficult to prove, hence my reservation for anything that does not account for what is the observed reality, that being the known density of the rocks, and how that indicates that there is a mechanism that hasn't yet been fully explained, properly. (I suspect!)


EDIT SP

The "mechanism" is very simple and very clear, and has been known since Newton invented the law of Gravity.

But I think it can be proved. You don't have to dig a hole to the earth's core, but perhaps some kilometer. Then the upper layer of rocks above that all around the earth, don't contribute to the nett force of gravity, and we should be able to detect a somewhat weaker force of gravity there.

I don't know if it has been ever done. Maybe the difference is too small to detect. On the other hand, we can also detect differences between the force of gravity between the poles and the equator. But that is for a large part due to the fact that the earth is rotating, and not because the difference in distance to the earth's center of gravity.

If not, we could also do the experiment on an astroid, and dig a hole to it's center of gravity.

By the way, I think you are partly confused because of the density and pressure, which of course is gradually building up when digging deeper in the earth's crust. This is because this force accumulates from the weight of the stones above it. Same as it happens when going into deeper water, the water pressure risis there.

It stands apart from the local force of gravity at that depth.

[Brad_Ad23]

Think about the conceptual aspect of this here for a second. You have equal amounts of mass all around you at the center of mass. This is equivalent to being in equillibrium by the gravitational forces, i.e. the net force is 0. When the net force is zero, you experience no acceleration. None of that, and you weigh nothing.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Think about the conceptual aspect of this here for a second. You have equal amounts of mass all around you at the center of mass. This is equivalent to being in equillibrium by the gravitational forces, i.e. the net force is 0. When the net force is zero, you experience no acceleration. None of that, and you weigh nothing.

Yes, I already explained that.

But it seems Mr Robin Parsons ain't buyin this kind of logic but wants actual proof. Perhaps even EXPERIENCE weighlessness himself in the interior of earth befoe actually BELEIVING that such a thing is actually true.

[Brad_Ad23]

He can be my guest to try out that one!

[heusdens]

Anyway, this thread is not about Newton mechanics, but about discussing this proposed new theory of gravity, as a pushing force from outer space that pushes on all mass. The same gravity laws can be drawn out of that mechanism, because the shielding of masses causes them to be pulled together.

The theory is an example of the application of the idea of complements or complentarity. We think of the universe in terms of two substances: masses, which behave like pointlike particles, and the non-mass that is spread out in all directions all to infinity, we call space. Now in such a conceptual world we can see that the concept of masses pulling each other, or the concept of the surrounding non-mass (=space) pushing to all masses, are equivalent. The same net force results, we call gravity.

[schwarzchildradius]

Would a current of space then violate the 2nd principle of general relativity? Not necessarily. define current as dspace/dtime, a velocity.
if KE=PE at this velocity, v2=2GM/r
Substitute this v into the Lorentz transformation and you have relativistic formula for homogeneous mass M a distance r from M's C.O.M.
If space inherently expands by the rule H = dr/rdt, where H is a constant, then any first distance ro will become exponentially larger with time.
H(t-to) = ln (r/ro)
The first derivative of r is the instantaneous 'velocity' of space
u = dr/dt = HroeHt
And so on..

[heusdens]

Here is another discussion on this topic:

Gravity: Push or Pull? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4869)

It mentions the work of Matthew R. Edwards about a book on the theory of Pulling Gravity. Pulling Gravity (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm)

[schwarzchildradius]

Do you think there might be a way to measure cosmological constants by studying the Cassimir effect?

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by heusdens
Here is another discussion on this topic:

Gravity: Push or Pull? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4869)

It mentions the work of Matthew R. Edwards about a book on the theory of Pulling Gravity. Pulling Gravity (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm)

Heusden, hi, I was under the impression that, by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as "pull" and that, in fact, "pull" is simply a push from behind.

I imagined, when i remembered this, that a field of gravity must act similarly to that of a field of electromagnetic origin by extending out, beind a smaller mass than the one generating the most gravity and "pushing it from behind" toward itself.

Schwartschildradius, hi, am I way wrong or what???

[heusdens]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Heusden, hi, I was under the impression that, by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as "pull" and that, in fact, "pull" is simply a push from behind.

Well actually there is no noticeable difference of course.
Both a shielding effect of masses under pushing gravity, explain the same net attracting force between masses.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, I already explained that.

But it seems Mr Robin Parsons ain't buyin this kind of logic but wants actual proof. Perhaps even EXPERIENCE weighlessness himself in the interior of earth befoe actually BELEIVING that such a thing is actually true.

Ahem the reason why I don't 'Buy' this kind of logic is because it implies that the center of the Earth should be hollow and siesmic information clearly tells us that it is NOT!



Simple enough for you?

Aside from that, the 'postulate' could simply be wrong, as the Modus Operandi of gravity might give it a very different operand then has been assumed.

Further to that, try to grasp the reality of this, cause it fits in with all of the thermal stuff I have been presenting, gravity is the force of contraction, heat is the force of expansion, and all matter is subjected to those forces.

Heat a rock and it expands, allow it to cool and it contracts, gravity, and it's opposite force component heat, at work/play.

Some of you have stated that Nigel's work says gravity is a 'push' force, from space, so how does a 'push force from space' curve the void around it as to cause the bending of travelling light?

Nigels work is something I have resisted reading, as it might lead to problems, for me, later, when I present all of what I have on the subject.

Lets try it this way, tell me if gravity 'pulls' (all matter) towards a "common center", or does it detract from the same center, and how could it accomplish both without creating a hollow mass??

Anyone?

[Brad_Ad23]

Well for one there is pressure. Ever try to crush something and see how it does not give in after awhile? That's why the earth is not hollow, and why in black holes all goes to a point.

Also, nowhere does there being zero g at earth's center imply it be hollow. In the absence of one force, there are still others acting on the substances in the center point...namely convective heat currents.

[schwarzchildradius]

push or pull only works in a classical sense. If you change the geometry of space dependant on the proximity and magnitude of masses in space the forces vanish. You just get particles moving in 'straight lines' from their perspective.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well for one there is pressure. Ever try to crush something and see how it does not give in after awhile? That's why the earth is not hollow, and why in black holes all goes to a point.

Also, nowhere does there being zero g at earth's center imply it be hollow. In the absence of one force, there are still others acting on the substances in the center point...namely convective heat currents.

I have agreed that there would be pressure, but you are the one pointing out that it becomes a "detracting" pressure, ergo a pressure from the materials above pulling the central materials outwardly, (hence the reason why I would experiance zero G) and this amount, if you figure, even simply, the math, leads to a view that the majority of the mass, would be the 'above' mass, hence the (remaining) 'central' mass would not have the gravitational energy to hold itself together against the greater pull of the overhead mass, hence it would hollow itself out.

No matter how you do it, (Your analogy above is 'just so wrong' Crushing something) if you do the math properly, then you MUST have a hollow center, if you think that the gravitational potential energy can detract from itself, no other way.

Never mind just that, if your postulate, (not yours actually, the one you are promoting herein) holds as 'true', then the weighting of all of the Universe's mass, as we currently know it, is wrong! (And possibly a little bit more then just that!)

EDIT SP! (what else is new?)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem the reason why I don't 'Buy' this kind of logic is because it implies that the center of the Earth should be hollow and siesmic information clearly tells us that it is NOT!


It does not imply that the earth at the center is hollow. That would namely be the case of the force of gravity would be 'negative' there (in the direction of the earth's core), but that is not the case. At the centre of earth, the gravity is simply zero, there is no nett force of gravity there.
The earth's core consist of fluid materials, which means that to some extend material can flow in and around the earth center of gravity.
Even though right at the center, the gravity excerts a nett fore of zero, you have to take into account that the pressure builts up from the core to the center in a cumulative way. The downfall of gravity towards zero only slows down the pressue built up.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)
good job though!
I agree nice job of Nigel.

But Nigel some questions:

In 16. you state: This constitutes a proof of the physical mechanism of gravitation . Great.

Nigel, I also appreciate that you really take your time to explain in referring to 3D-world examples (Corridor, apple/chair/ground, air in closet, bubbles, ...).

1. But what's this gravitation mechanism? Where or how is the physical coupling happening?

If you answer with measurements ... great ... repeatable observations ... that's a first step, but if you refer to forces, fields (then I will ask: what's the physical mechanism of 'forces', 'fields' and how is the physical coupling of forces, fields, ...etc.). So whatever mathematical self-covering new definitions you will give ... I will always again ask: what's their mechanism.

I like to know what the max. speed of a Mercedes is, it's model, it's weight, it's color, height, type of tiers, tint of the windows, number of lamps, ... that's however describing outside properties ... but that's not explaining how I can BUILD the complete Mercedes.

Building ... or the engineering design, that's what really interests me.

So what's you idea about that engine? (not just 'pressure': that's mathematical semantics again, not the 'fabric of space': that's another name to say I don't know . I refer here for example to: " The fabric of space is what gives rise to electromagnetic constants for the permittivity, impedance, etc., of space.". ;-) See? The frame of the Mercedes has in the front some curvatures, doors and windows.

You said before: "1 & 2- The fabric of space, said Einstein in his Leyden university lecture, has "physical qualities" according to general relativity." Of course ... the Mercedes is RED.

... the engineering picture(s). Since we live in a 3D world ...

Originally posted by Nigel
Einstein is explicit. Space-time curvature is the gravitational field. Period. ...
Curvature denotes the motion of a test particle of infidesimal mass in a gravitational field. Curvature is just a mathematical way to express gravitational acceleration as the space-time path of such a test particle.
Nice, I like that.
So each inertia frame (ie. with only one test-particle) has it's own space-time curvature? Bundling frames create matter. Where is here the magic Higgs boson? It should be a graviton particle (0,0)... but only an empty frame, correct? A single empty frame just on it's own ... hanging there without a connection and still having the possibility to pull or to push ... seems not logic ... except if it is part of a 'membrane' which is then the space-time curvature.
Does this make sense to you? Please correct if I made a illogic step.

Originally posted by Nigel
The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.
This is an important second prediction for my proof. The first prediction was that the most distant stars are not being retarded by gravity, because gravity is a PUSHING effect, not a magic elastic band pulling effect (that violates Hooke's law, whereby the elastic band force would increase with distance instead of decreasing by the inverse square law).
[:)]
As Schwarzchild said. It's your positioning. And positioning is also relative.

Gravity is although embedded also in the smallest particles, and if connected to or part of a elastic membrane they may be pulled, or even been pushed from a gravitational inside.

Even this paradoxical situation to the observer: a test particle pulled to a distant reference frame ... that has a large acceleration in the opposite direction of the pull direction. (shall I rephrase?).

Now and on the "magic band pulling effect" I have to say this: by elastic deformation of a medium it is possible.

The elastic performances will depend :
(1) from the fixing of the position (cfr. Poincare),
(2) from the degree of stretchability (which can be on it's limits),
(3) from bundling with other reference frames,
(4) from the magnitude of the reference frames (level of manifolded membrane).

So don't throw away this alternative. (cfr. your FAQ: If gravity was caused by magical elastic bands, the elastic force would increase in proportion to the amount of stretching (Hooke’s law), instead of decreasing with the inverse square of distance. Therefore, if gravity was an elastic pulling effect (instead of the pushing effect proven above), the furthest planets would have to move the fastest to maintain their orbits, and the universe would be completely different to the way it actually is!).

And what about The Einstein-Rosen Bridge? This "wormholes" may connect two parallel universes, or even distant parts of the same universe, ... so the PUSH can be in fact a PULL from another direction passing through a wormhole :-0.

Nigel, I designed such an "elastic' approach, only based on ONE postulate.
You can find this with some images on http://hollywood.org/cosmology/principles.html

In short:
The multi-dimensional Universe consists basically of a giant unbreakable, almost infinite stretchable membrane of "gravitons" (to been seen as tiny tubes/3D strings). The giant tube - which is in essence the membrane itself - will restructure itself in many divisions and sub-divisions. We call these divisions: Islands.

The engineering system to reach them is a manifolding (tube parts of the membrane penetrate other parts of the membrane). Since the membrane is unbreakable the penetration provokes that the impacting tube receives a second skin all his further trajectories. This second layer comes from the receiving part of the membrane.

I call this coupling system a pelastration (PEnetration + ELAstic + STRAda). You can see it as a pressure valve. We can also say that this is a 'white hole'.

Each island contains the complete historical layering from the previous hyperspaces from which is founded. This way we can say that the system always keeps it's INTEGRITY.

Each island has it's own time frame.

Each island has it's own space curvature (depending from the layers embedded).

Each island has to follow a number as universal constants related to the proprieties of the membrane (such as the limits in stretchability).

Since the internal and external 'skins' move as two or more coupled moving systems they create between them FRICTION. That friction creates an overhaul oscillation which amplitude will depend from the internal (topological) structuring of the layers depending from their degree of membrane stress. This explains RESONANCE.

Next to that the membrane can create 'locally' also new tiny tubes which will act as membrane tentacles vibrating after the overhaul frequency of that specific island. We can call these outer-island tubes: Field tubes (because they represent the electro-magnetic and radiation fields). They can capture other tubes (coil, strangle, knot, etc.) or pelastrate other tubes or be pelastrated themselves.

Because the layers press upon each other they create 'tension', thus DENSITY. This way the various combinations between energy and matter can be explained. The shift between energy and matter happens thus as follows: couple (white hole of A+B)-> de-couple (Black hole separation A and B) -> re-couple (New white hole A+X) and/or (new white hole B+Y).

The membrane is thus Gravity, and all what follows - by pelastratic - manifolding is restructured gravity.

Thus with ONLY one postulate a kinetic mechanism is shown which explains how from almost 'nothing' a universe of self-organizing can be build.

Nigel, this simple approach explains some basics. All experimental measured events will be confirmed in this approach ... but this is an engineering picture.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
It does not imply that the earth at the center is hollow. That would namely be the case of the force of gravity would be 'negative' there (in the direction of the earth's core), but that is not the case. At the centre of earth, the gravity is simply zero, there is no nett force of gravity there.
The earth's core consist of fluid materials, which means that to some extend material can flow in and around the earth center of gravity.
Even though right at the center, the gravity excerts a nett fore of zero, you have to take into account that the pressure builts up from the core to the center in a cumulative way. The downfall of gravity towards zero only slows down the pressue built up.

Ever study the seismic information on the Earth's core, recent studies of the anisotrophic nature of seismic wave propagation (Earthquake induced) have revealled a solid mass that has a structure that is thicker on one half the sphere, then the other side of the same sphere. Plus revealations of differential rotation of other elements of/at the center.

Further to that, in a space that would be as HOT as that particular space would be, gravity would not be zero, that is a 'mathematical' result, (reality tends to differ) the gravity that would be there would be as a result of the "Iron Gas" that would exist there as either a peusdo plasma, or completely plasmatic state.

Within that the accreation of heavier elements that would be fusing into higher order elements, because of the extreme gravitational/thermal environment.

Can you Imagine Brad_AD23 "Iron Gas", sounds like the name of a heavy metal band, with there first 'instant classic' being "Fusion".

Actually the proper term would be Gaseous Iron, or Fe.

The only place you would find anything like 'zero' gravity, inside matter, (when You are attracted to the mentor in these forums???) is where you should be finding "fussion" occuring.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ever study the seismic information on the Earth's core, recent studies of the anisotrophic nature of seismic wave propagation (Earthquake induced) have revealled a solid mass that has a structure that is thicker on one half the sphere, then the other side of the same sphere. Plus revealations of differential rotation of other elements of/at the center.

Further to that, in a space that would be as HOT as that particular space would be, gravity would not be zero, that is a 'mathematical' result, (reality tends to differ) the gravity that would be there would be as a result of the "Iron Gas" that would exist there as either a peusdo plasma, or completely plasmatic state.

Within that the accreation of heavier elements that would be fusing into higher order elements, because of the extreme gravitational/thermal environment.

Can you Imagine Brad_AD23 "Iron Gas", sounds like the name of a heavy metal band, with there first 'instant classic' being "Fusion".

Actually the proper term would be Gaseous Iron, or Fe.

The only place you would find anything like 'zero' gravity, inside matter, (when You are attracted to the mentor in these forums???) is where you should be finding "fussion" occuring.

It doesn't matter what is inside there near the center of gravity, still the gravity is zero at the center of gravity, and it builts up in every sphere surrounding the centre of gravity. Nowhere it is exactly zero, but at that point in space, called center of gravity.

All your arguments against that fact make no sense.

[pelastration]

Maybe you can better say: in balance , not zero.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by pelastration
Maybe you can better say: in balance , not zero.

Thanks for your lengthy post above. It is possible to produce various tests and demonstrations to the model I proposed.

One way is by simulation in a computer.

Another, perhaps more dramatic but less accurate way, is to put a large number of small objects around a pressure gauge and a couple of nearby rigid containers at a fixed depth in a large water pool, and have them pulled outwards (using a system of pulleys), away from the pressure gauge, with a velocity that increased in proportion to their distance, like the Hubble recession of stars.

What will happen is an increase in pressure in the middle, and an attraction of the two rigid containers towards one another. This will produce a visual demonstration of the model to be filmed for simple illustration of the mechanism of gravity, and how it relates to the Hubble equation and the fabric of space.

This may force people to read the mathematical proof before trying to criticise it. Getting the water pool experiment scaled realistically will be hard, but at least the principle can still be illustrated.

Nigel[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
It doesn't matter what is inside there near the center of gravity, still the gravity is zero at the center of gravity, and it builts up in every sphere surrounding the centre of gravity. Nowhere it is exactly zero, but at that point in space, called center of gravity.

All your arguments against that fact make no sense.

That is exactly the point that you seem to keep missing, because your sticking to a mathematical concept that leads you to believe in something that is NOT actually there, "A center of Gravity", because it is at that point that gravity is acting to produce more matter, thereby capturing more heat/thermal energy.

In what you call 'zero' gravity, gravity is acting....so how can it be 'zero'?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is exactly the point that you seem to keep missing, because your sticking to a mathematical concept that leads you to believe in something that is NOT actually there, "A center of Gravity", because it is at that point that gravity is acting to produce more matter, thereby capturing more heat/thermal energy.

In what you call 'zero' gravity, gravity is acting....so how can it be 'zero'?

1. Nett force is still zero at center of gravity.
2. Matter creation in center of eart? You must be kidding!

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Nigel
Another, perhaps more dramatic but less accurate way, is to put a large number of small objects around a pressure gauge and a couple of nearby rigid containers at a fixed depth in a large water pool, and have them pulled outwards (using a system of pulleys), away from the pressure gauge, with a velocity that increased in proportion to their distance, like the Hubble recession of stars.
This may force people to read the mathematical proof before trying to criticise it. Getting the water pool experiment scaled realistically will be hard, but at least the principle can still be illustrated.
Nigel[:)]
I suggest Nigel that you make a small or several images of such a test set-up, and publish that on your website. This will show that you are not affraid of real tests. Maybe you will find a motivated finacier by doing so. ;-)

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok, maybe another consideration is required.

You are at the center of gravity of the earth. Divide the earth into 4 equal pieces. By the newton system, refer all these masses to point masses, at their respective centers. The sum of the forces of gravity that all 4 points exert on you will sum to 0.

Or

The Einstein way. Mass/energy curves spacetime causing gravity. When you are at the center of gravity, we have an equal amount of Mass/Energy density all around us. That is more to the point. We are not talking about the exact center of the earth per se. The center of mass and center of gravity need not be at the true center. Perhaps that clarifies things. Due to density distribution it is unlikely even. However at the center of gravity that is the case, the amount of mass/energy density is the same all around you in any frame hence a uniform gravitational force is exerted on you from all directions meaning you experience zero net force.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ok, maybe another consideration is required.

You are at the center of gravity of the earth. Divide the earth into 4 equal pieces. By the newton system, refer all these masses to point masses, at their respective centers. The sum of the forces of gravity that all 4 points exert on you will sum to 0.

Or

The Einstein way. Mass/energy curves spacetime causing gravity. When you are at the center of gravity, we have an equal amount of Mass/Energy density all around us. That is more to the point. We are not talking about the exact center of the earth per se. The center of mass and center of gravity need not be at the true center. Perhaps that clarifies things. Due to density distribution it is unlikely even. However at the center of gravity that is the case, the amount of mass/energy density is the same all around you in any frame hence a uniform gravitational force is exerted on you from all directions meaning you experience zero net force.

Yes Brad, clearly you are schooled in the manners in which this is taught, so tell me Brad, what if reality is doing it in a manner that neither of those two propositions explain.

Tell me Brad, what if atoms half the way into the earth are focusing 70% of their Gravitational energy towards the center, and not 50%in/50%out. what if that if actually the path of it's operation?

Do you leave the door in your mind open enough to accept even so little as the possiblity? (cause that is how you learn to explore!)

Aside from that, a "center of gravity" is a conceptual thing, being a concept does NOT gaurantee that it is a reality, nor does it gaurantee that it works that way!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes Brad, clearly you are schooled in the manners in which this is taught, so tell me Brad, what if reality is doing it in a manner that neither of those two propositions explain.

Tell me Brad, what if atoms half the way into the earth are focusing 70% of their Gravitational energy towards the center, and not 50%in/50%out. what if that if actually the path of it's operation?

Do you leave the door in your mind open enough to accept even so little as the possiblity? (cause that is how you learn to explore!)

Aside from that, a "center of gravity" is a conceptual thing, being a concept does NOT gaurantee that it is a reality, nor does it gaurantee that it works that way!

Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole....!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole....!

The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, lets put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW Heusdens, you mention "gravity and atoms", most of what I have heard about gravity and atoms is that atoms have gravity because they have mass, but that it is too small to measure at that level.

So it is quite possible that the method of activity/actions of "atomic level gravity" is different, than is currently, unknown actually.

Thanks.... have you started diggin yet, you might just need the head start in time as it's a long ways down.

[Brad_Ad23]

Well seeing as the center of gravity no longer exists according to you, I guess if I balance this book at the center of gravity it will not stay balanced.

*does so*

Oops....it is balanced.

If there were no center of gravity orbital mechanics would become very unstable, and there would be no center of gravity in any mutli-body system either (which there are and we take advantage of many times in satellite operations by placing them in these zero net force locations so that we don't have to haul up propellent as well). Mr. Parsons, you obviously need to do some careful thought experiments and learn some real physics, or you need to get a shovel and start digging. Do some searches for information about this phenonmena. Gravitational energy is symmetric and atoms cannot make 70% go one way and 30% the other. If that was the case the inverse square law would not hold, and indeed, atoms would be much more unstable than they are, as would molecules. Thus far we have shown gravity is classical in the micro-scale size, and even once we enter the realm of the atomic size it should still operate more or less classically. Quantum gravity effects don't come into play until about the size of quarks.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

"........And once we get into the Atomic scale........"

OOoooooops, you mean you aren't there yet??

Well, when you get there, you'll know, cause you'll see my tracks!


Hey, what an incredible analogy, the balancing a book (as having a center of gravity, Obviously at Zero G as you have so far insisted is the 'truth'!!) as an analogous entity, to the gravitational effects upon the core of a 6.6 Sextillion ton planet.

I see you have a little, what? dyslexia with scales??

Other then that, I'm really glad you don't believe me...actually!

Thanks!!

[Brad_Ad23]

Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

Lets see, I sorta made fun of your badly woven analogy, including a remark that you seemed to be missing scale knowledge, as clearly you even admit you have "no atomic scale theory", at least I do!!

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.

I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

Most of the orbiting masses are round/spherical in shape, hence playing with the idea of a center of gravity in a box shape, a book, seems rather inane, as to equate it to "no stable orbit"

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. wanted to place a huge Bwahahahah in here, what a con job that statement is, "No where is it remotely disputed..." and no where is it proven either, (explitive deleted!!!) what kind of a RUBE falls for lines like that???? And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.

evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!!

Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, lets put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?

Gravity is a force vector, which can be (including all the other forces) sum to zero. That is why there is weighlessness.


And your hypothese can be easily disprooved by measuring force of gravity at some depth, it should drop the deeper we get.

[Brad_Ad23]

There is no difference. Gravity is gravity be it inside OR outside. As I said before 2 times now, and for the 3rd time, take some classes in the basics.

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.


That is rich.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!!


You are very very disorganised mentaly, based upon these statements.
Your very own statement was that there was no proof (which also means lack of disproof) for the center of gravity of earth having a balancing (all force vectors of gravity, as with respect to the gravity excerted by the atoms of earth themselves, and not the outside universe, there balance to exactly cancel themselves out, creating weithlesness at the exact center of gravity) force of gravity.

So, on other words, you now claim YOU BEEN AT THE CENTER OF EARTH AND MEASURED A NON-ZERO FORCE OF GRAVITY???
So what was the amount of the force and direction of this force then?

It simply can't direct to any specific direction, cause all directions would be equally likely. That just argues for why the force there should be zero.

And , please, don't come up with the quantum effects of gravity, since as we know, nothing happens inside the earth that urges us to take into account quantum gravity!

Nuclear fusion processes, for instance, do NOT occur inside earth, neither we are on a NEUTRON star, so any out of the ordinary behaviour of gravitation is not expected inside earth.

This in fact means that all gravitational effects happening inside of earth, are no different then that happen outside of earth, which have been explored profoundly and deeply.


Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!


Calling upon 'Divine interventions' or the 'superatural' will not be of much help to you, to save your argument.

Better start digging that hole...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, lets put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

Gravity is a vector force. If you sum those forces up, it could give a resultant force of zero. So, you are simply wrong there!

For instance, consider a simple two body problem, in empty space.
There is exactly one point, in between the two bodies, the line that connects both centers of gravity, in which all gravitational forces are cancelled.

Now consider just a perfectly spheric object, made out of a material that has overall the same density. The force of gravity is directed towards the center of gravity, both outside the sphere and inside the sphere. Outside the sphere gravity drops proportional to 1/r^2.
Inside the gravity is proportional to r. And therefore zero at the center of gravity.



See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.


No, it could not. Cause when you would dig for instance 100 km. then all of the outside surface of depth 100 km, would no longer contribute to the nett force of gravity at that depth, since the combined forces of gravity cancel out each other.
Remember the are VECTOR forces, which have a direction and magnitude.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Gravity is a vector force. If you sum those forces up, it could give a resultant force of zero. So, you are simply wrong there!

For instance, consider a simple two body problem, in empty space.
There is exactly one point, in between the two bodies, the line that connects both centers of gravity, in which all gravitational forces are cancelled.

Now consider just a perfectly spheric object, made out of a material that has overall the same density. The force of gravity is directed towards the center of gravity, both outside the sphere and inside the sphere. Outside the sphere gravity drops proportional to 1/r^2.
Inside the gravity is proportional to r. And therefore zero at the center of gravity.

No, it could not. Cause when you would dig for instance 100 km. then all of the outside surface of depth 100 km, would no longer contribute to the nett force of gravity at that depth, since the combined forces of gravity cancel out each other.
Remember the are VECTOR forces, which have a direction and magnitude.

That is simply what you are stating, but you have no proof of that (other then the math, and that alone is NOT proof!)

Please stop the condescentions as the person you are talking to is NOT a child!

That is what you keep saying, you can repeat it until the server dies storing the page, and that will still NOT make it any 'truer', cause, as I have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, the reality of the Earth's structure does NOT allude to a 'zero gravity state' at it's center, even though, conceptually it is the "Center Of Gravity" of the Planet.

The explaination of the 'why' of that, is currently unknown to the rest of you, I suppose, so, for now, it gets left that way.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are very very disorganised mentaly, As evidenced by your spelling?? based upon these statements.
Your very own statement was that there was no proof (which also means lack of disproof) for the center of gravity of earth having a balancing (all force vectors of gravity, as with respect to the gravity excerted by the atoms of earth themselves, and not the outside universe, there balance to exactly cancel themselves out, creating weithlesness at the exact center of gravity) force of gravity.

So, on other words, you now claim YOU BEEN AT THE CENTER OF EARTH AND MEASURED A NON-ZERO FORCE OF GRAVITY???NO, and NO WHERE DOES ANYONE SEE ME SAYING THAT, just you trying (stupidly) to force yourself upon me, little else...
So what was the amount of the force and direction of this force then?

It simply can't direct to any specific direction,It does, it aims for the center, what did you think it did? cause all directions would be equally likely. That just argues for why the force there should be zero.

And , please, don't come up with the quantum effects of gravity, since as we know, nothing happens inside the earth that urges us to take into account quantum gravity! HUH? another attempt at your Hubris??!!

Nuclear fusion processes, for instance, do NOT occur inside earth, And no doubt you have the proof of that too(?) neither we are on a NEUTRON star, so any out of the ordinary behaviour of gravitation is not expected inside earth.

This in fact means that all gravitational effects happening inside of earth, are no different then that happen outside of earth, which have been explored profoundly and deeply.A statement, but not a shred of proof! Quelle Idiot!

Calling upon 'Divine interventions' or the 'superatural' will not be of much help to you, to save your argument. Apparently you cannot even read, as what you seem to believe is only what you would like to see, not as I wrote, that's life!

Better start digging that hole...

Heusdens, your reflection, in a mirror..."You are very very disorganised mentaly"

As for digging a hole, already have and am easily willing/able to bury you in it!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just a quick, passing, thought, if this "gravity all balances out to zero" hypothesis, that you would seem to be expounding as 'veritas', is in fact true, then why/how the heck is there any gravity on the planets surface?

Why isn't it zero'd out, in balance, just like you seem to wish to be doing, at it's center??

Simply question!

P.S. Sorry Heusdens for the 'Condescentions' remark, it should have been posted towards Brad_AD23, get that Brad_AD23?


Have a nice day, God willing, I will!

[heusdens]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [QUOTE]

We started the argument on this center of earth's gravity, where earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.
You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.
Unless you think that earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Just a quick, passing, thought, if this "gravity all balances out to zero" hypothesis, that you would seem to be expounding as 'veritas', is in fact true, then why/how the heck is there any gravity on the planets surface?

Why isn't it zero'd out, in balance, just like you seem to wish to be doing, at it's center??

Simply question!

P.S. Sorry Heusdens for the 'Condescentions' remark, it should have been posted towards Brad_AD23, get that Brad_AD23?


Have a nice day, God willing, I will!


READ THE DAMN PROOF NEWTON GAVE FOR THIS!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
We started the argument on this center of earth's gravity, where earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.

You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.

Unless you think that earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.

You may imply anything you want, but for as long as I have known things in science, an Implication is NOT a proof!

As for the force vector at the center, it must be towards the center, and NOT zero.

The radiation is heat, and guess what, the center of the Earth is heated, radioactively heated.

When Venus had her 'makeover', back about the dawn of Homo Sapiens, it would have been a "fusile thermal eruction", probably very high energy waves, gamma perhaps, sustained, and as it flowed out of the surrounding rock, it heated the surface, in passing, giving her that nice 'un-pockmarked' face, she now has. Such an air about her as well.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for the force vector at the center, it must be towards the center, and NOT zero.


Not only you did not understand something about the proof of newton, but now it comes up neither you undestand what a VECTOR is.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Read a damn physics course book!

[Brad_Ad23]

Hmm I thought I suggested that learning thing.

[Nigel]

Aristarchus of Samos worked out the solar system theory, but the greater complexity of Ptolemy's earth-centred universe with all of its unexplained, complex epicycles was more intellectual than the facts. Mathematical junk always wins. People respect it.

If it is unintelligible, unproven, speculative, and claims to be a theory, then it will be publishable, praiseworthy, and worshipped like a religion. If it is fact, it is buried for 1000 years.

[;)]

[Brad_Ad23]

UHHH right. Or it could just be that your idea doesn't hold any water at all for the known facts of the universe. Again as has been said, pressure gradients cannot cause the bending of light around massive objects, and your equations do not lend themselves to that at all. Nor would they be able to take into account any quantum gravity at all because they require your space to be continuous.

I can't vouch for you, but I know that all physicists have a thorough understanding of the mathematics they deal with and if it led to silly things like epicycles, it would be tossed out and couldn't make the predictions that agree with experiment as well as they do.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
UHHH right. Or it could just be that your idea doesn't hold any water at all for the known facts of the universe. Again as has been said, pressure gradients cannot cause the bending of light around massive objects, and your equations do not lend themselves to that at all. Nor would they be able to take into account any quantum gravity at all because they require your space to be continuous.

I can't vouch for you, but I know that all physicists have a thorough understanding of the mathematics they deal with and if it led to silly things like epicycles, it would be tossed out and couldn't make the predictions that agree with experiment as well as they do.


Find the error in it if you claim it is wrong. There is no pressure gradient, because gravity is a pushing effect. What causes apples to fall is not a gradient in pressure. It is shielding from an all-round pressure which pushes inwards equally from all directions except those shielded by the presence of mass. Light is pushed just as an apple is.[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
Not only you did not understand something about the proof of newton, but now it comes up neither you undestand what a VECTOR is.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Read a damn physics course book!


No more bad language please! If textbooks are so great anyway, why do they not tell you the cause of gravity already. It would have saved me spending my life researching the subject![:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [QUOTE]

We started the argument on this center of earth's gravity, where earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.
You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.
Unless you think that earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.


Great argument, but a pity that the more fundamental question of the cause of gravity is being neglected!

[Brad_Ad23]

Pushed by what? Light has no substance (no photons do not count as substance). Also, if this thing pushes all objects inwards, that is itself a fault. Pressure things follow certain rules, and as such somewhere in the universe there must then be a rift where there is no pressure, because an omni-directional field of pressure will create it. I can't have pressure pushing from the right, and from the left and not have some spot where the two originate where there is no pressure pushing at all.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, when you measure gravity, 'external' from the generating body, the gradient used is 1/r2, when it is measured 'facially' (at the generating bodies surface) it becomes 1/r, so when you would want to measure it 'inside' the generating body, the requisite gradient would be 1/sq.rt of r, (One over the square root of 'r', so sorry I don't know how to make the square root sign!) hence you will find an 'ad reducio' factor that will permit the densities of rock that the planet has.

Gravity is a summing force, it sums all matter such that the matter will "act as one".

If you have 3 balls that are gravitationally attached to each other, a fourth ball that is gravitationally attracted to it ,is attracted to the sum of the masses of the 3 balls, not the sum of the masses reduced by factor of cancelation of gravitational energy, it doesn't work that way. Provably.

By the way Heusden, I did go to school, (high school and university [some] physics) continued studieing for years after that.

Just cause that theory made it into a movie doesn't prove that it is the right answer, just that it was the most current thought, but it does not account for the measured properties of the Earth properly, nor the measured properties of the rest of the mass in the universe, for that matter. (no pun intended?)

The center of the earth has a very large steel ball forming in it, from the siesmic evidence, and the heat that that ball contains, would blow it apart if it were not for the generated gravitational pressure that contains it.

BTW heusdens, you state that I do not know what a 'vector' is, but if you go back in YOUR postings you used the term in the same manner as I did, so..............well, "What you see in 'others', is really the truth as it arises from within you!

Have a nice day guys!

[Brad_Ad23]

Dear Physics, how the hell did you guys come up with 1/r and r-1/2?? Gravity obeys the inverse square law no matter which frame you are measuring from. It is always 1/r2.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So gentlemen, this site tells of the density of the Earth, Density (http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density.htm) and has an internal link to this page, Density error (http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density2.htm) that helps us to know that the measurable density of the rocks must be greater within the planet as to ensure that the average density works out properly.

Further to that, as this is a physics forums, I will not need to prove this, the simple reality is that anyone who has even a slight knowledge of Fusion reactions will tell you that it requires tremendous Pressure (and temperature) to initiate.

In the theory that you seem to be expounding to me, that you would wish me to swallow a true, the center of gravity of any given gravitational object is comletely absent of any pressure what-so-ever, hence the Sun, that huge ball of firely gas in the sky, would NOT be fusing!!

It could NOT be fusing as, you would want me to believe, there is NO gravitational pressure at it's center, hence it cannot be fusing.

Anyone care to try again?

Ps, please, do not try to tell me that it is "the weight of all of the material above it that is presssing down upon it" that is creating the requisite pressure, BECAUSE that weight, is only 'weight' BECAUSE of gravity!!........otherwise, it would be weightless, and therefore incapable of pressuring anything!

Have a nice day guys!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Pushed by what? Light has no substance (no photons do not count as substance). Also, if this thing pushes all objects inwards, that is itself a fault. Pressure things follow certain rules, and as such somewhere in the universe there must then be a rift where there is no pressure, because an omni-directional field of pressure will create it. I can't have pressure pushing from the right, and from the left and not have some spot where the two originate where there is no pressure pushing at all.

E=mc^2. Light has energy, has mass. If you read some textbooks, you find the useful info that 'light has no rest mass'. However, since light is never at rest, that statement is about as useful as the pseudo-scientific string theory, which predicts nothing at all despite millions of dollars of funding. You think that there are no epicycles in string theory fiddling. It is all ad hoc trash. You may try to say that my work is trash on the basis that my budget comes out of my salary, and that so many people in science cannot all be wrong. In that case, you are disproven by DNA sequencing. There is not the slightest evidence that everyone in the world suddenly, in 1600, had the same mutation - preventing them from all making the same errors.

In fact, DNA evidence is that over 99.8% of human DNA data is similar. So scientifically, there is every reason why superstitions are commonplace everywhere, why mistakes are repeated, why people are over awed at things which they do not understand like tensor calculus.

Your statements about photons not constituting substance is false on the basis that radiation pressure, electromagnetic radiation pressure, has been demonstrated. The momentum of light is equal to its energy divided by the velocity of light, p = E/c. If that fact does not suggest to you that light has substance, then bye bye sir.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Dear Physics, how the hell did you guys come up with 1/r and r-1/2?? Gravity obeys the inverse square law no matter which frame you are measuring from. It is always 1/r2.

Wrong again. The gravitational potential goes as 1/r. The inverse square law is gravitational acceleration and force.

Work energy E equals the force multiplied by distance r moved in direction of the force, E = Fr. Consequently when you have gravity F = mMG/r^2, then your energy E = Fr = mMG/r.

However, this playing with potential energy, which is done in textbooks in the absence of the mechanism of gravity, is trivia.

The textbooks carry a lot of mathematical play in order to set questions with which to prepare students for exams. They do not carry the answers to fundamental questions.

Euclid's Elements of Geometry, written 300 BC, full of complex geometric diagrams and proofs, still looks impressive today. Despite the fact that Euclid made a false fifth assumption, about parallel lines reaching to infinity, which prevented general relativity being investigated for 2200 years. How impressive are textbooks?[a)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So gentlemen, this site tells of the density of the Earth, Density (http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density.htm) and has an internal link to this page, Density error (http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density2.htm) that helps us to know that the measurable density of the rocks must be greater within the planet as to ensure that the average density works out properly.

Further to that, as this is a physics forums, I will not need to prove this, the simple reality is that anyone who has even a slight knowledge of Fusion reactions will tell you that it requires tremendous Pressure (and temperature) to initiate.

In the theory that you seem to be expounding to me, that you would wish me to swallow a true, the center of gravity of any given gravitational object is comletely absent of any pressure what-so-ever, hence the Sun, that huge ball of firely gas in the sky, would NOT be fusing!!

It could NOT be fusing as, you would want me to believe, there is NO gravitational pressure at it's center, hence it cannot be fusing.

Anyone care to try again?

Ps, please, do not try to tell me that it is "the weight of all of the material above it that is presssing down upon it" that is creating the requisite pressure, BECAUSE that weight, is only 'weight' BECAUSE of gravity!!........otherwise, it would be weightless, and therefore incapable of pressuring anything!

Have a nice day guys!

We have already explained you this.

1. The force of gravity, working on all the matter of for instance the sun, cause a built up of pressure. The pressure is built up from the core to the center of gravity, cause the pressure sums up the gravity forces above it.
2. The force of gravity however runs down from the core downto the center, and becomes in the center effectively zero.

No force of gravity in the center, just means that the built up of pressure, effectively halts there. But since all matter above it feels the force of gravity, this means that the pressure there is at the maximum. And not zero.

The pressure is just the sum of gravitational forces of all matter above a certain point.

[Brad_Ad23]

Ah, misreading. The gravitational potential energy, yes that is 1/r. The gravitational force, is 1/r2. They way it was said, it sounded as though we were still talking bout the force when Parsons said 1/r inside bodies. And actually he was referring to force. So my post is correct.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
We have already explained you this.

1. The force of gravity, working on all the matter of for instance the sun, cause a built up of pressure. The pressure is built up from the core to the center of gravity, cause the pressure sums up the gravity forces above it.
2. The force of gravity however runs down from the core downto the center, and becomes in the center effectively zero.

No force of gravity in the center, just means that the built up of pressure, effectively halts there. But since all matter above it feels the force of gravity, this means that the pressure there is at the maximum. And not zero.

The pressure is just the sum of gravitational forces of all matter above a certain point.

If the pressure halts at the center, then No fusion.

If the gravity runs down to zero, then no matter, if matter, the no zero cause matter generates gravity...period.

If you do a shell game of matter, you find that the matter on the outer shell well exceeds the amount of matter towards the middle, hence if your scenerio worked there would be no matter at the center, it would be hollow. (it isn't!)

Aside from that, as I have pointed out, mathematically you can find a zero point, but in reality there is none, because gravity is the pressurization of both energy, and matter, by matter.

The core of the earth is a large steel ball, pressurized by gravity and heated by the pressurization that gravity generates.

Further to that gravity, as I have pointed out, is a part of a thermal cycle that absorbs energy, the graity part, and shortwaves (compresses) it to thermal+ wavelengths, which re-emits as heat, from the center.

In order for that to occur, gravity must hold sway right to the very center of the core of the earth.

In order for your scenario to work, the greatest pressure would be at the half way point, which makes no sense, what-so-ever. Aside from that, it will not account for the rock density problems that we know are real.

Believe whatever you want, but remember the 'Sunshine' as that is the proof that I have that, fusion takes place there, in the center of the core of the Sun.

BTW if the force of gravity runs down towards the center, then the density of the rock, would have the greatest densities of rock at the surface, which, last time I, or anyone else, looked, IS NOT THE CASE!

There is also the cases of core colapse in Steller Novas, wouldn't happen if the center was at zero as the rest of the matter flies off of the surface due to the thermal expunging on energy while the core remains intact.

P.s. it is the core collapse that generates the expunging heat, so how can the core, with a zero g center, initiate the colapse?

Explain please......cause I don't think you can cause your responce is wrong! (only works in the movie not in reality!)

Brad, 1 over the square root of r, inside.

[Brad_Ad23]

Not quite sure how you get a shell. There will be more matter above it, but remember, this is 3d so there is just enough across it to counteract the pull it feels above it. It still sums out to zero.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If the pressure halts at the center, then No fusion.

If the gravity runs down to zero, then no matter, if matter, the no zero cause matter generates gravity...period.

If you do a shell game of matter, you find that the matter on the outer shell well exceeds the amount of matter towards the middle, hence if your scenerio worked there would be no matter at the center, it would be hollow. (it isn't!)

Aside from that, as I have pointed out, mathematically you can find a zero point, but in reality there is none, because gravity is the pressurization of both energy, and matter, by matter.

The core of the earth is a large steel ball, pressurized by gravity and heated by the pressurization that gravity generates.

Further to that gravity, as I have pointed out, is a part of a thermal cycle that absorbs energy, the graity part, and shortwaves (compresses) it to thermal+ wavelengths, which re-emits as heat, from the center.

In order for that to occur, gravity must hold sway right to the very center of the core of the earth.

In order for your scenario to work, the greatest pressure would be at the half way point, which makes no sense, what-so-ever. Aside from that, it will not account for the rock density problems that we know are real.

Believe whatever you want, but remember the 'Sunshine' as that is the proof that I have that, fusion takes place there, in the center of the core of the Sun.

BTW if the force of gravity runs down towards the center, then the density of the rock, would have the greatest densities of rock at the surface, which, last time I, or anyone else, looked, IS NOT THE CASE!

There is also the cases of core colapse in Steller Novas, wouldn't happen if the center was at zero as the rest of the matter flies off of the surface due to the thermal expunging on energy while the core remains intact.

P.s. it is the core collapse that generates the expunging heat, so how can the core, with a zero g center, initiate the colapse?

Explain please......cause I don't think you can cause your responce is wrong! (only works in the movie not in reality!)

Brad, 1 over the square root of r, inside.


You are constantly confusing two distinct things: gravity and pressure.

Like I said, pressure is building up from the core to the center.
But this building up is actually getting slower as you get deeper, cause the force of gravity there, decreases, down to zero.
THAT MEANS THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN, PRESSURE INCREASES. The maximums pressure is at the center. Becase there, the CUMULATIVE force of all the matter on which gravity acts, is excercised.

Why don't you just look up Newton's proof of this? It simply shows that the shell above a certain radius r, excerts a force of gravity which exactly cancels out, and therefore the net force of gravity is equal to the force of the mass of radius r.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heusdens, if at any pont the gravity is equal to zero, and there is pressure then it blows up, explodes, fracures out into lots of little pieces, gravity is what is holding it all together, by pressurization.

Newton did NOT know about Neutrons, Neutron Stars, Black Holes, The Big Bang, The currently known size of the Universe, The rest of the Galaxies out there, Stars using fusion as their source of power, Nuclear reactions, A bombs, H bombs, the internal structure of the Earth, the huge stell ball that is there, as measured, (RECENTLY!!) He did not know a lot of the things that get taught in High School Science classes, right now.

I did the shell game calculation and it is very clear that if the gravity drops, off then the Earth IS hollow, and it Ain't! as there cannot be pressure, on matter, absent of gravity, as all of the pressurizations you see, anywhere, are a direct, and indirect, result, of what gravity, in atoms, does, NO exceptions!

Without the pressure that only gravity can cause, the heat (anti-pressure)there, would blow it apart!

Nigel, if your spacial pressurization, as per surface area worked, then I could take a 1 square meter piece of material, 1 mm thick, and find a ten fold difference, in it's weight, as per gravities pressurization on it, simply by standing it on it's edge, as opposed to laying it flat.

Sorry to tell you, it doesn't work that way, and that, too, is provable!

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons, think about it for a minute. At this center point where gravitational vectors sum to zero, what do you have above it in every direction? Why the earth of course. Since all the gravity vectors sum to zero at this point, that means (as is correct) all this mass above this point is wanting to fall inward. After all, that is where gravity makes it want to go. So you have this enourmous weight pushing down on the center of gravity, and then you have the outward pressuer and heat which do what kiddos? Why it supports the earth's enourmous weight. Wow, the earth doesn't blow apart ater all.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Parsons, think about it for a minute. At this center point where gravitational vectors sum to zero, what do you have above it in every direction? Why the earth of course. Since all the gravity vectors sum to zero at this point, that means (as is correct) all this mass above this point is wanting to fall inward. After all, that is where gravity makes it want to go. So you have this enourmous weight pushing down on the center of gravity, and then you have the outward pressuer and heat which do what kiddos? Why it supports the earth's enourmous weight. Wow, the earth doesn't blow apart ater all.

At the centre of the earth, there is no net push from the fabric of space in any direction. In other words, in the middle a person is equally shielded by the earth isotropically (in all directions).

Gravitation is not an attractive effect. The acceleration of objects towards each other is due to their mutual shielding, although a person's shielding of the earth is insignificant conpared to the earth's shielding of a person, so in effect only the earth is doing significant shielding when you consider falling people and apples. This is why a person's or apple's mass does not affect their acceleration, which is 9.8 ms^-2 or 32 feet/sec^2 on the surface.

At the very middle, a hypothetical point of no size, there is no net force or acceleration in any direction.

A pulling effect (I believe as shown by my proof that gravity is pushing, not pulling!) would depend entirely upon the difficult physical problem of whether or not two opposing vectors cancel each other out, or whether the net effect simply becomes undetectable by some ways of measurement.

Dr Arnold Lynch PhD and David A. Chalmers BSc did some research on examples of "field cancellation" problems. Dr Lynch points out that where you get radio wave interference, you can find points where there is zero measurable field strength, although clearly the energy does not vanish. Another example is electromagnetic gamma ray radiation. It has a net field of zero, because its positive and negative fields along the wave oscillation exactly balance. Therefore, as a whole it is uncharged. However, you can detect gamma rays and they deliver energy. Dr Lynch worked on the problems of microwave radiation interference for British Telecom in the 1980s and his work is published in Proc. IEE. Standing waves, where reciprocating energy is passing through itself in bouncing around, creates null points called "nodes". Energy passes through these.

David Chalmers worked with lasers on the problem of energy conservation in Young's double slit experiment. The problem is that when you measure the total energy on the screen in the double slit experiment, and compare it to energy conservation in the water tank double slit experiment as Young did, you find an anomaly. Interference can mean that light arriving out of phase cancels to produce dark fringes, but the energy is still there in the maths! In other words, equal light arrives on the bright and dark areas in the double slit experiment, but the dark areas are dark because the electromagnetic fields of the light rays cancel out. At least, that is what one version of the mathematical energy conservation equation has us believe. It is probably more complex.

If two vectors cancel, that may mean either that there is nothing at all, or that there is something still, yet what remains has no net result. If however you take the case of a person, then you are not dealing with an infidesimal point at the centre of the earth. In that case, you need to make detailed calculations for the forces to the arms and legs. However, this whole argument is a leap away from the basic issue of the cause of gravity, which needs to be resolved.[;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are constantly confusing two distinct things: gravity and pressure.
...

Why don't you just look up Newton's proof of this? It simply shows that the shell above a certain radius r, excerts a force of gravity which exactly cancels out, and therefore the net force of gravity is equal to the force of the mass of radius r.

Newton's proof that there is no net gravity acting on an infidesimal point anywhere inside a hollow sphere or shell requires the inverse-square law of gravity to cancel out the geometry of the situation.

The fact that gravitational potential energy, E = Fd = (mMG/d^2)d = mMG/d, is inversely proportional to distance, not to the square of distance, seems to raise a problem with Newton's proof. While the forces on a single infidesimal point anywhere within the shell will "cancel out" (i.e., they may not cease to exist, but at least they balance from all sides), the gravitational potential energy would vary with location within the shell.

IF you moved, you would therefore be subject to a force to due to changes in your gravitational potential energy, which is not predicted in analyses of the shell problem. In other words, you only feel no net force if you are so small you do not exist, and you do not move at all. Since all atomic electrons, etc., are always in motion you have forces right away to a person in such a situation.

The major issue is probably the reduction of all-round inward directed space pressure, when inside a shell which shields you from all directions. In that case, even if there was an equality of forces to a static point, the overall compressive force will be reduced. It will be like the difference between the 14.7 pounds per square inch (101 kilopascal) pressure of air at the earth's surface. if you go into space without a pressurised spacesuit and only with a bottle of compressed air, you would soon notice that the vector cancellation of air pressure forces from all directions at sea level did not mean that there was no scalar air pressure. The effects of the reduction in pressure would not be pleasant (diver bends, rupture of delicate tissue in lungs, inflammation of blood vessels under skin, etc.).

Therefore, when vectors cancel, scalar components do not have to, and there can be all kinds of complicated effects. Probably the most interesting would be to use a hollow sphere as a time-machine, because of the effects on space-time of being at reduced space pressure. But I only want to get gravity's cause sorted out at this stage. [:)]

[icespeed]

sorry nigel, yell at me if this is really obvious or already been answered.

you analogised your theory to the wind rushing the other way when someone walks down a corridor, or air rushing to fill a suitcase that's been opened.
so that's like saying spacetime rushes past the accelerating galaxies to provide pressure that we feel as gravity.
so... where does all the spacetime from beyond the accelerating galaxies come from?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets put it this way, Newton DID NOT have the PROOF of the FACT that the center of the Earth is a steel ball!

Which brings us to a simple dilemma, (for all of you) as we have found that we have a solid (greater denstiy) sitting inside, at the center of, a massive amount of liquid (lessor density) and all of you trying to tell me that there is less gravity there, then above it, where we find the liquid of lessor density.

So how do you achieve a greater density, in a space of less gravity, when all pressurizations, other then mechanical, are as a result of gravity?

P.S. Simply put, Newton was wrong!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
At the centre of the earth, there is no net push from the fabric of space in any direction. In other words, in the middle a person is equally shielded by the earth isotropically (in all directions).

Gravitation is not an attractive effect. The acceleration of objects towards each other is due to their mutual shielding, although a person's shielding of the earth is insignificant conpared to the earth's shielding of a person, so in effect only the earth is doing significant shielding when you consider falling people and apples. This is why a person's or apple's mass does not affect their acceleration, which is 9.8 ms^-2 or 32 feet/sec^2 on the surface.

At the very middle, a hypothetical point of no size, there is no net force or acceleration in any direction.

A pulling effect (I believe as shown by my proof that gravity is pushing, not pulling!) would depend entirely upon the difficult physical problem of whether or not two opposing vectors cancel each other out, or whether the net effect simply becomes undetectable by some ways of measurement.

Dr Arnold Lynch PhD and David A. Chalmers BSc did some research on examples of "field cancellation" problems. Dr Lynch points out that where you get radio wave interference, you can find points where there is zero measurable field strength, although clearly the energy does not vanish. Another example is electromagnetic gamma ray radiation. It has a net field of zero, because its positive and negative fields along the wave oscillation exactly balance. Therefore, as a whole it is uncharged. However, you can detect gamma rays and they deliver energy. Dr Lynch worked on the problems of microwave radiation interference for British Telecom in the 1980s and his work is published in Proc. IEE. Standing waves, where reciprocating energy is passing through itself in bouncing around, creates null points called "nodes". Energy passes through these.

David Chalmers worked with lasers on the problem of energy conservation in Young's double slit experiment. The problem is that when you measure the total energy on the screen in the double slit experiment, and compare it to energy conservation in the water tank double slit experiment as Young did, you find an anomaly. Interference can mean that light arriving out of phase cancels to produce dark fringes, but the energy is still there in the maths! In other words, equal light arrives on the bright and dark areas in the double slit experiment, but the dark areas are dark because the electromagnetic fields of the light rays cancel out. At least, that is what one version of the mathematical energy conservation equation has us believe. It is probably more complex.

If two vectors cancel, that may mean either that there is nothing at all, or that there is something still, yet what remains has no net result. If however you take the case of a person, then you are not dealing with an infidesimal point at the centre of the earth. In that case, you need to make detailed calculations for the forces to the arms and legs. However, this whole argument is a leap away from the basic issue of the cause of gravity, which needs to be resolved.

Nigel I notice you have not addresed the surface area issue, the one meter square, by one millimeter thick, piece of steel that I should be able to turn on it's edge and find a reduction in gravitationally accelerated resultant pressure (weight) that is of such a magnitude that I would be required to laminate (sandwich together) 999 other pieces of the same size sheet of steel before it would have the "edge on" same/identical surface area, as to generate the same readings, on a scale, as when I have ONE piece, laying flat. (your 'Push' force from space)

If one piece of that steel weighted in at one kilo, then by turning it on its' side I should be able to add 999 more pieces of that steel, sandwiched, and then still get a 'one kilo' reading on the scale, as that represents the same surface area. (rather then the 1,000 kilo weight both of us know it would actually weight)

Sheilding from the Earth cannot compensate for that, never mind the simplicity that all weight is a result of gravitational ativity, proving that is as simple as taking a sixty kilo weight here on the earth, and weighing it on the moon, where it will now weight in at ten kilos.

EDIT the math I was off by a factor of ten, one extra decimal point. plus some of the wording, OYE! what a time

[Nigel]

Originally posted by icespeed
sorry nigel, yell at me if this is really obvious or already been answered.

you analogised your theory to the wind rushing the other way when someone walks down a corridor, or air rushing to fill a suitcase that's been opened.
so that's like saying spacetime rushes past the accelerating galaxies to provide pressure that we feel as gravity.
so... where does all the spacetime from beyond the accelerating galaxies come from?

Physical dielectric of the vacuum or fabric of the space-time continuum, with four properties: a magnetic field permeability, an electric field permittivity, a electromagnetic wave impedance (377 ohms), and an electromagnetic velocity (300 Mm/s).

This has already been answered by me.

1. This applies to the existing expanding big bang universe independently of gravity being the result of the expansion. The establishment position of all except Einstein (who differentiates in his inaugural lecture at Leyden University in 1920) is to lump volume and fabric of space together, creating a convenient confusion from which to argue that no one can ever understand anything, and therefore that physics is stable and not liable to undergo any further revolution, but just to encounter new mathematical knots.

2. Nuclear explosions in space, such as the American Starfish test of 1.4 Mt at 400 km altitude (well into space) on 9 July 1962, did not magically create space. The space already existed around them. There is no reason to treat the big bang any differently from a nuclear explosion in space, except for the detail of the energy release (scale up to 10^55 megatons, but start off with energy instead of atomic matter as in nuclear bombs and supernovae).

3. Some conventional books, such as Marcus Chown's (a former New Scientist magazine employee) grandly promoted "Afterglow of Creation" propagate the myth that explosions cannot occur in space because there is no air and that the big bang was therefore not an explosion. I have no sympathy with that sort of waffle.

4. Robert Kennedy said that (I think) 5% of the public is against everything all of the time, and they are the only ones who speak up. So I will take up your offer to yell at you: the fabric of space is a proven fact. The mathematical proof shows what happens when you move in it. Critics who try to score points by raising existing problems in science do not detract from the proof.[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel I notice you have not addresed the surface area issue, the one meter square, by one millimeter thick, piece of steel that I should be able to turn on it's edge and find a reduction in gravitationally accelerated resultant pressure (weight) that is of such a magnitude that I would be required to laminate (sandwich together) 999 other pieces of the same size sheet of steel before it would have the "edge on" same/identical surface area, as to generate the same readings, on a scale, as when I have ONE piece, laying flat. (your 'Push' force from space)

If one piece of that steel weighted in at one kilo, then by turning it on its' side I should be able to add 999 more pieces of that steel, sandwiched, and then still get a 'one kilo' reading on the scale, as that represents the same surface area. (rather then the 1,000 kilo weight both of us know it would actually weight)

Sheilding from the Earth cannot compensate for that, never mind the simplicity that all weight is a result of gravitational ativity, proving that is as simple as taking a sixty kilo weight here on the earth, and weighing it on the moon, where it will now weight in at ten kilos.

EDIT the math I was off by a factor of ten, one extra decimal point. plus some of the wording, OYE! what a time

Wrong. Your argument is that gravity only affects surface area, not subatomic particles. If this were so, your weight would indeed be greater lying down than standing up, and the same for your piece of steel.

The answer is that the total effect of gravity is that on each subatomic particle in you or your steel, added together. Not the overall shape. The atomic particles are extremely small in comparison to the atomic volumes they occupy.[:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

To address Parsons:

You are acting as if this center point is the source of gravity. Cancel it out and suddenly there is no more gravity at all. All the gravity on earth is pulling it downward to this point. This creates a pressure as well, which can and does exist at this point. The pressure will not cause the earth to explode because, as stated, if you move in any direction out of the center of gravity, the imbalance in forces that result cause an equal reaction. It is not that gravity does not exist at the center, it is that the sum of all forces is zero at this point. That is, it is in equillibrium. To think of it in a relativistic sense, the center of gravity is at the bottom of the gravity well (a 2 dimensional spacetime such as a rubber sheet isn't too helpful when picturing this, but imagine the bottom half of a ball under the bottom of the curve). At this bottom of the well, there is no resulting force either way.

As for a pushing gravity caused by pressure and all, it still does not explain how it bends light, after all as I stated many a times, light is not subject to be acted upon by pressure like this because it has no real mass to have a force imparted on. It obeys the geometry of spacetime. Also, how would this explain orbits as well? Should not at some point any orbiting system reach a state in which it becomes unstable? And what about the L points in any orbital system? The two points lying ahead and behind the orbit of one body are not shielded by any mass in a way that will create what it does.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets put it this way, Newton DID NOT have the PROOF of the FACT that the center of the Earth is a steel ball!

Which brings us to a simple dilemma, (for all of you) as we have found that we have a solid (greater denstiy) sitting inside, at the center of, a massive amount of liquid (lessor density) and all of you trying to tell me that there is less gravity there, then above it, where we find the liquid of lessor density.

So how do you achieve a greater density, in a space of less gravity, when all pressurizations, other then mechanical, are as a result of gravity?

P.S. Simply put, Newton was wrong!


This has been answered already THREE times, it is because PRESSURE builds up from the surface to the center, it accumulates the forces of gravity on all matter outside the center, so the pressure is to be expected highest in the center. But this built up of pressure is not linear, cause the force of gravity itself is not constant, but drops down to zero near the center.

Is this so difficult to understand?

[heusdens]

This proof of Newton thing (gravity is zero at the center of mass) is effectively off-topic, but it was necessary here, cause Mr. Parson does not understand Newton's law of gravity, and effectiviely does not understand gravity at all.

The topic is however if gravity is to be denoted as a force that acts between all masses as an attractive force, or if all the non-mass (the "fabric of space") presses on all massive objects, and that the same laws of gravity as a nett-attracting force are just the result from the shielding effect.

What I said about this, is that we can simply interchange mass and it's effect (curvature of space), as being one in the same. Instead we could also say curvature of space causes mass. They are the same, but complementary views.

Same for the "causes" of gravity, we can either denote it as masses attracting each other, or masses that shield other masses from pressure of non-mass (everything that "surrounds" matter).

This is however not to claim a "different cause" or a cause at all for gravity, but it is just modelling things complementary, in the same way as we can say that "matter causes curved spacetime" and "curved spacetime causes mass" are equal, but complementary descriptions.

All we can know and ever will know, is the nett forces that gravity casues as can be measured, and the laws that predict the resulting behaviour of gravity (Newton, Einstein).

Wether you "see" gravity as a result from mass atracting mass, or mass shielding mass from non-mass pressure, is realy equal.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HeusdensThis has been answered already THREE times, it is because PRESSURE builds up from the surface to the center, it accumulates the forces of gravity on all matter outside the center, so the pressure is to be expected highest in the center. But this built up of pressure is not linear, cause the force of gravity itself is not constant, but drops down to zero near the center.

This proof of Newton thing (gravity is zero at the center of mass) is effectively off-topic, but it was necessary here, cause Mr. Parson does not understand Newton's law of gravity, and effectiviely does not understand gravity at all.

Heusdens, you are comical, at best.

If it followed what you are telling heusdens it would have gravitationally attracted the huge steel ball in the center, out to the sides, that you are telling all of us has the greater gravitational attraction!!

Hence heusdens you would have a hollow centered earth/planet.

Apparently heusdens you have completely missed that I told you that Newton himself DID NOT KNOW that that giant steel ball was in the center of the earth.

Had he known that, had that evidence, he too would probably have "canned" the shell game explaination for the reality, as portrayed by the earth, as he was a brilliant man.

That shell game explaination was the only alternative he had, he had NOT the evidence of the greater density of matter that lies at the center of the planet. Hence his choice was limited as he had to go with what he could prove, and he was clearly absent of the needed evidence, clearly NOT HIS FAULT!

I too, would have gone with the 'shell game', had I not had the evidence that proves otherwise.

BTW Heusdens, the rest of your "nonsensical" post, above, proves that it is really you who hasn't the grasp of the subject matter.

He warps a void, bends a vacuum, doesn't ever grasp that gravity is what causes all the pressurizations of mass, other then mechanical.

Nigel, even if it was subatomic, which is NOT what you paper states, as you paper clearly uses the surface area of spheres to establish the pressurizations according to size, the 'edge on' would none the less change the weight reading that would be given, as the matter would shield the subatomic particles from your gravitational force from above, of from the 'shielding' you claim the planet has, which, in order to counteract gravity, would NEED work on surface area, as well.

I suspect you owe the editor(s) of the "Letters of the Physical Review", an apology, but I doubt that you have the, well, whatever, to do it.

Heusdens, please post again, you too Brad_A23, I need the laugh!

(Forgive me, cause that is rude of me!)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Nigel, if your spacial pressurization, as per surface area worked, then I could take a 1 square meter piece of material, 1 mm thick, and find a ten fold difference, in it's weight, as per gravities pressurization on it, simply by standing it on it's edge, as opposed to laying it flat.

Sorry to tell you, it doesn't work that way, and that, too, is provable!

What is in red ,above ,is my error, as the difference would be 1000 x's, not simply 'ten fold'

EDIT Removing a [/b] switch

[Brad_Ad23]

It doesn't matter what is in the earth's core, its the same for any object. At the center of gravity of that object, one experiences no net gravitational acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law when you talk about pressure, since that is merely F/A (force over area). Every force has an equal and opposite reaction, hence, as this force is 'pushing' upwards, at the same time it is experiencing a downward force as well, from gravity and the rest of the mass on top of it, which does what folks? It allows what we have been saying to be true, as well as Newton's proof. Believe me when I say, over the centuries, where newton wrong, it would have been found by someone of far greater caliber than you Parsons. No offense, but that is the truth. A professional would indeed have discovered this to not be true.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It doesn't matter what is in the earth's core, its the same for any object. At the center of gravity of that object, one experiences no net gravitational acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law when you talk about pressure, since that is merely F/A (force over area). Every force has an equal and opposite reaction, hence, as this force is 'pushing' upwards, at the same time it is experiencing a downward force as well, from gravity and the rest of the mass on top of it, which does what folks? It allows what we have been saying to be true, as well as Newton's proof. Believe me when I say, over the centuries, where newton wrong, it would have been found by someone of far greater caliber than you Parsons. No offense, but that is the truth. A professional would indeed have discovered this to not be true.

Wrong. Newton is not so bright. If you read my analysis on the last page, the Newton "proof" that there is no net force uses the inverse square law, which only applies to static objects. With moving electrons, etc, you have to consider not the inverse-square but just the plain inverse of distance [gravitational work energy E = Fd = (mMG/d^2)d = mMG/d]. Because Newton's geometric argument requires gravity to be proportional to the inverse square of distance for forces to cancel inside the earth, he is wrong for gravitational potential energy.

On the theme of Newton's errors, you could read up on how he fiddled his equation for the speed of sound to give the already-known experimental answer, about a century before it was discovered that his equation was wrong because he had assumed a sound wave to be isothermal when in fact it is adiabatic, compressing and heating the air as it passes.

Newton's approach to the whole of physics was to apply dimensional analysis to grab as many equations under his great name as he possibly could as quickly as possible, then fiddle results of experiments to prove them. Hooke proved that he discovered the inverse-square law of gravity before Newton. Newton then produced an undated manuscript which he claimed he wrote before Hooke. All these genuses squabbled over finding glory in equations. (I will spare you the story of Newton versus Liebniz on the discovery of the calculus.)

The idea of hero worship is bad not only because these people were crazy, arrogant, religious freaks (Newton had a chest full of papers he wrote on alchemy and interpretation of the Book of Revelation), but these people stand in the way of progress today even though they have died.

In quantum mechanics, you find Niels Bohr's Correspondence Principle and Complementarity Principle - known as the Copenhagen doctrine - doing the same thing.

The acceleration of gravity was discovered by Galileo, who fiddled his experimental results on rolling canon balls, because his results omit the rotational kinetic energy of the balls! You can prove from his data that he fiddled it. The same goes for Newton and sound speed, for Maxwell and light speed (Maxwell's January 1862 paper contains an error in elasticity theory, giving only 41% of the speed of light, but he conveniently gets the right already-known answer using the wrong working), and so on.

Of course, this is sour grapes coming from me. I'm pointing out these facts because I have a chip on my shoulder at not being recognised for a genius. Actually, I'm a moron. Now will you listen? No, I think not.[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
This proof of Newton thing...

What I said about this, is that we can simply interchange mass and it's effect (curvature of space), as being one in the same. Instead we could also say curvature of space causes mass. They are the same, but complementary views.

Same for the "causes" of gravity, we can either denote it as masses attracting each other, or masses that shield other masses from pressure of non-mass (everything that "surrounds" matter)...

All we can know and ever will know, is the nett forces that gravity casues as can be measured, and the laws that predict the resulting behaviour of gravity (Newton, Einstein).

Wether you "see" gravity as a result from mass atracting mass, or mass shielding mass from non-mass pressure, is realy equal.

Wrong. You claim that my proof of the cause of gravity is recognised as being equivalent to Newton's explanation, although no one will "ever" know which is right.

My proof predicts that the density of the universe is (3/4) times the square of the Hubble constant, divided by the product of pi and the gravitational constant. Alternatively, you get the gravitational constant from the others.

Newton and Einstein at best only predict half this density. NASA is supposed to be making efforts to send up satellites to get the Hubble constant and density known properly, by observing gas clouds and variable stars, etc. When this data is available, it may confirm either Newton and Einstein, or moron. If it confirms moron (me) then it will be possible to give an absolute cause of gravity.

However, we do not have to wait for NASA. A proof does something called proving a fact. Newton does not have a proof that the equation he got, like Hooke, from combining Galileo's empirical unexplained gravity equation and Kepler's empirical unexplained third law, is the cause for gravity. All he says is that it describes gravity. If a "law" is like a photograph of a girl; the photograph is not the girl it is just a piece of paper, and it is not the cause of the girl either. The whole business of taking causes to equations which are just geometric expressions of curves from data plotted on graphs, is absurd. Einstein does it better, by considering the errors Newton included of gravitational energy and instantaneous action at a distance, and correcting them mathematically. However, Einstein's equation looks even more obscure than Newton's and is certainly misunderstood by many people as being a cause of gravity when it is nothing of the sort.

Another proof of my cause is that, as the paper says, it explains why the most distant supernovas are not being slowed down by attraction by the gravity within the universe. The explanation of gravity being the inward push from surrounding expansion clearly shows that the outermost objects in the big bang will not receive an inward push from beyond, and will therefore not be slowed down by gravity. So there is plenty to distinguish and prove my theory from Newton's magical mathematics "law of nature" fiddle.

[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons


Nigel, even if it was subatomic, which is NOT what you paper states, as you paper clearly uses the surface area of spheres to establish the pressurizations according to size, the 'edge on' would none the less change the weight reading that would be given, as the matter would shield the subatomic particles from your gravitational force from above, of from the 'shielding' you claim the planet has, which, in order to counteract gravity, would NEED work on surface area, as well.


Wrong. Matter is subatomic in nature, I suggest you read more closely the preamble in either the internet or printed article. But even if I had not said that matter is composed of subatomic particles, that would not change anything. The paper is about gravity, and atomic physics is well established. I do not need to go into that, although I do mention in in the internet version and I give the force mechanism of the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force in the printed article.

On your area problems, you are treating the area of a person and the area of the earth. To prove the cause of gravity, you take just one thing, preferably simple, say an electron. You then work out the gravitational acceleration towards it resulting from the inward push of space from the all-round universe, in reaction to the big bang.

Hence, the cross-sectional area you need to consider for shielding is that for just one particle. If you have two particles, you double the effect. Hence, gravity is proportional to mass. Mass is simply the effect of space by inertia against space and gravity. The beauty of my proof is that the absolute cross-sections are not needed to calculate gravity. The maths by passes the problem, since other factors cancel.

It was a surprise to find that, because I was ready to hit a snag with nuclear cross-sectional areas. Experiments in nuclear physics show that nuclear cross-sectional areas appear to depend on the speed and energy of the particle you use to probe the nucleus. However, this result is due to interference between the frequency of the particle's wave and the frequency of oscillation of the nucleus. If I had needed to put measured cross-sections into the equations, it would have been a messy business. Fortunately, it worked out better.

Cumulative shielding will be insignificant as my proof step 13 (I think from memory) shows that to stop the dielectric push of the entire universe, you need an exactly equal mass of matter. So you would need to have the earth the mass of the universe to completely shield the inward directed dielectric push. Since the earth's mass is very much smaller, the cumulative shielding is insignificant. Therefore, you can calculate gravity by adding up the number of particles without worrying about whether they are beside one another or behind one another. The effective cross-sectional area is small enough to make the probability of two particles being directly behind one another almost insignificant. However, it is a good point to raise.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel I will address your responce when I have the chance, soon no doubt.

2003-05-26 Open the attachment 'foist'So sorry, see note at bottom, file's too big to attach , please..........

So heusdens, in figure # 1 we have two bodies being gravitationally attracted to each other, in Fig # 2 we see the result of the two bodies being "joined at the hip", so to speak, once the gravitational attractions have finished their work and the two bodies are stuck together, gravitationally.

Please note that if a third body is introduced, in fig # 2, then the attraction will be towards the combined weights of the two bodies, not a subducted weighting. If each of those spheres weighed in at x kilos each, when a third body of y kilos is introduced, the gravitational attraction from the two conjoined bodies will be as if were 2x kilos attracting y kilos.

In Fig # 3 we have the Shell game, The volume of the spheres is calculable (I'm rounding the numbers) with the volume of sphere r = 2 being, as per 4/3 pi r3, ~33 cu x's, the complete sphere at r = 3 being ~ 113 cu x's, and the complete sphere at r = 4 being ~268 cu x's.

(This is a given that they are NOT at any kind of pressure, and the actually volume is written as cubic x's as I am not needing to assign any particular value to it)


So @ r =2 = 33 = green sphere
@ r =3 = 113 = red sphere and green sphere, therefor the red shell volume is (r=2)-(r=3) = 80 cu x's
@ r =4 = 268 = blue sphere and red sphere and green sphere, therefore the red shells volume is (r=2)-(r=3)-(r=4) = 122 cu x's

Hence the shells r = 2 volume is 33 cu x's, the shell r = 3 volume is 80 cu x's, and the shell r = 4 volume is 122 cu x's

So this applies to figure # 3 as from what you are telling the volume of r = 4 is greater then the volume of r = 3 combined with r = 2, (r = 4 = 122 and (r = 3 + r = 2 ) = 113) such that the gravitational power of the shell r = 4 should be attractive enough to attract all of the matter out of shell r = 2, and compress it in shell r = 3!
(remember I told you, it WOULD BE HOLLOW!!!)

Simple problem, your center of gravity is now the RED line that represents the circumference of r = 3, as draw in with that large red X that is actually the arrowheads of the two vectors that are the orange lines that point towards, what you are telling us all is, the NEW center of gravity!

Funny, but measurements tell us that the center of gravity of the Earth, that is acted upon by stellar objects, like the Moon, the Sun, etc. act as if the center of the Earth was/is the center of the planet, not some shell halfway between the middle and the outside.

Never mind that one, the reality is that if the gravitational attraction was where you seem to wish it to be, then that large steel ball that is the center of the Earth would be GRAVITATIONALLY ATTRACTED towards that RED CIRCUFERENTIAL SHELL that is R = 3, it would definately NOT stay at the center of the planet, as it is a mass, therefore, it too has gravitational ability and should be, in your scenario, attracted towards the center of gravity which is the red line in this fig # 3.

Please note, IT IS NOT and that is in defiance of what you state, supports completely what I am stateing, and should finish off completely this delightful arguement of yours, which is the wrong answer!

As I stated before, if Newton had had the evidence, he probably would have told the proponent of the 'shell game' to take a HIKE, as he too would have been able to prove that gravity acted all the way throught to the center of the planet, pressurizing it right to the CORE.

So, contrary to what the movie taught all of you, if you were to travel towards the center of the planet, the gravity there would pin you to the floor with such force as that you would not be able to stand up, that is, of course, if it didn't squeeeeeeeeze all of the blood out of your body first!

Makes the movie an "Instant Classic", as it is a wrongful portrayal of the reality of gravities activities, so get it today on DVD, or video cassette......yadda, yadda, yadda, insert commercal "here" (sorry greg. a 'non commercial' site right? so get the rest on PF 2.0 only $20.00 from Greg Bernhardt, "Cheap Cheeep" said the Robin!)

Awwww the file won't attach too big, I'll find another way to show you, just wait a little bit please

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel your eq # 4



2. Spherical surface area, Ar = 4 p r2



uses the surface area to compensate for the lack of objective use of actual mass calculation.

So sorry, but surface area cannot be the "Cause of Gravity" it's MO, as it very simply is very provable that it is not!

[Brad_Ad23]

Gravitational force (inverse square) and gravitational energy are TWO different entities. It is best to not confuse the two. One is measured in Newtons (units of force) the other in Joules (units of energy)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If any of you would like the BMP that I have, please PM me with an e-mail address and I will send it to you 'lickety split'! (sorta, limited access sometimes, sooooo)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Gravitational force (inverse square) and gravitational energy are TWO different entities. It is best to not confuse the two. One is measured in Newtons (units of force) the other in Joules (units of energy)

So you are saying that it would be impossible to measure the same thing two different ways, hence making a slight mistake in figuring things out??

Got you right?

The BMP is a bitmap draw in Mspaint, and goes along with the explaination on the preceeding page, colourfull too!


Thanks, bye for now...............

(Hi Jean, remember me? soon Jean, soon......like NOW!)

[Brad_Ad23]

No you don't. They are not the same thing. Force and energy are two different things altogether. They are related sure, but they are by no stretch of any physics imagination the same thing at all. Treat them as such, and yes, you will make a big mistake in calculations.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Heusdens, you are comical, at best.

Let us just assume that according to the rest of us, who DO understand gravity, you are comical, not me.


If it followed what you are telling heusdens it would have gravitationally attracted the huge steel ball in the center, out to the sides, that you are telling all of us has the greater gravitational attraction!!

Hence heusdens you would have a hollow centered earth/planet.


Either you can't read, or you can't think, or both, cause this argument does NOT follow my line of thought.
The force of gravity ALWAYS is directed towards the center, but from a straight line from the surface to the center, this force of gravity will go slowly drop down.
Hence all matter will be atracted towars the center, although deep down, this force is less then at the surface. Nevertheless, all the mass above a certain point, becuase it is attracted towards the center, will accumulate into pressure, and that is why pressure, when going down from the surface to the center, will gradually built up, and also cause matter deeper down to be more condensed, and hence heavier then at the surface.

Your statement that erath would be hollow, COMPLETELY missed the point, and simply means you don't understand anything about gravity.


Apparently heusdens you have completely missed that I told you that Newton himself DID NOT KNOW that that giant steel ball was in the center of the earth.


This is due to the lack of observational methods at the time, and is besides the argument.

Anyway, since you did not even understand the proof of Newton, because you completely misjudge what it means (it certainly does not follow from Newtons's proof that the earth is hollow), we just keep laughing because of the stupidity of your posts!

Keep sending them!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Heusdens

Hence all matter will be atracted towars the center, although deep down, this force is less then at the surface. Nevertheless, all the mass above a certain point, becuase it is attracted towards the center, will accumulate into pressure, and that is why pressure, when going down from the surface to the center, will gradually built up, and also cause matter deeper down to be more condensed, and hence heavier then at the surface.

heusdens you have successfully just proven you can't follow reality, cause according to your (il)logic you have heavier matter, a solid steel ball, sitting in a lighter matter, the fluid above it, and you say that there is less gravity holding it there.

Nevermind you now tell me that all of the mass is atracted towards the center, while in your previous posts you stated it was attracted to the greater gravitational point which was above it.

Talk about self-contradiction.

Please explain how pressure is developed, in absence of any gravitational force, and not mechanical pressure.

Remember, pressure is as a result of weight, and ALL weight is as a result of gravities activities, so how do you have pressure in absence of gravity inducing a weight into/upon the matter?

(good laugh for ya?)

EDIT a switch

[Brad_Ad23]

heusdens why do I get the impression that this is a futile argument?

Ok Parsons, listen up carefully. The gravitational force is directed downwards. To the center of gravity. At this point, the center of gravity, this is where all the little vectors of force meet up. At this point, there is no attraction, since there is no distance to go to get to the center of gravity. But, what else is going on? Hmm, well we have all this weight above the point. Yeah, that is directed downward as well. But what else is going on? We have pressure. Yep, Force divided by area. What else? As you go down deeper, you get more pressure, because there is more weight above you. Check. So anything else? Well, it would appear that if gravity's strength decreases, should there not be less pressure? Nope. The pressure exerted on any region down there, is a result of the weight above it. Not due to the gravitational force at that depth. It is also balanced as per the 3rd law of motion--An equal, but opposite, reaction for every action. The pressure from above pushes down, and the matter being acted upon pushes back with equal force.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel your eq # 4



uses the surface area to compensate for the lack of objective use of actual mass calculation.

So sorry, but surface area cannot be the "Cause of Gravity" it's MO, as it very simply is very provable that it is not!

I am pushed down because the earth shields me on one side only. To work out how much shielding there is, I can assume that there is a shield at a distance downwards equal to 1 earth radius which is doing the shielding. I then need to work out the net push, which is the uncancelled effect pressing me down from above, due to the space pressure in response to the big bang.

One way of doing that is to consider the relative fraction of the total spherical area around me which is being effectively shielded.

The presence of geometry, such as areas and volumes, in the paper is explained. If you don't take the time to even read it, you are behaving like Dr Karl Ziemelis, physical sciences editor of Nature. Sorry for this insult, but you asked for it.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel it's a compliment that you would compare me to him.

Brad you apparently think weight is some kind of independant force, separate from gravity, as apparently you cannot seem to comprehend that it is gravity that causes anything and everything to have weight.

Simple proof, go to the moon and weight it there, 1/6thof it's weight here on Earth, because, 1/6th of the gravitational force.

No gravity, NO WEIGHT!


and this Brad_AD23

27/05/2003

Brad, you tell me not to confuse energy and force, but if you take a flashlight, an emitter of light, (EMR) and shine it on a sensitive weight scale, it will give you a weight reading, because the energy is capable of generating a force, a measurable force.

Heck, I learned that one in High School physics class, way back when, in the olden days, "Old School".


Have fun!

EDITED!

[Brad_Ad23]

Uh, I know I said gravity was weight. I was being redundant because it seems you cannot distinguish the two. And as I said earlier, force and energy are RELATED. Not the same. The light imparts a momentum to the scale, creating the force, however, this does not mean by any means force and energy are the same. So, again my point still stands.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
heusdens you have successfully just proven you can't follow reality, cause according to your (il)logic you have heavier matter, a solid steel ball, sitting in a lighter matter, the fluid above it, and you say that there is less gravity holding it there.

Nevermind you now tell me that all of the mass is atracted towards the center, while in your previous posts you stated it was attracted to the greater gravitational point which was above it.

Talk about self-contradiction.


I did never say that, it must have been your interpretation of things, caused by the fact that you did not understand the proof of Newton. (read the damn proof yourself, before making nonsense statements!)

All I mentioned was the proof of Newton, who succesfully explained that inside a heavy object, part of the force of gravity is cancelled, due to the outer shell at some depth, not contributing any longer to the gravitational force.

Further I stated that the more deep you go towards the center of gravity, even when the gravitational force is diminishing (due to the cancellation of the force excerted by the mass in the shell) pressure still increases, and hence there is more compression of matter.


Please explain how pressure is developed, in absence of any gravitational force, and not mechanical pressure.


I already explained that. And there is no absence of gravitational force, unless in the very precise center of gravity.
The pressure builts up all the way down to the center, but near the center this built up is significantly less then near the surface.


Remember, pressure is as a result of weight, and ALL weight is as a result of gravities activities, so how do you have pressure in absence of gravity inducing a weight into/upon the matter?



Pressure can be caused by any force. Remember near the center, all the weight from above that point, right to the surface, is pressing there. So it's not just the LOCAL force of gravity, but the summation of all the weight from there to the surface that is resulting in a pressure. Hence it can be concluded that all the forces exerted on all matter of earth, will contribute to the pressure in the middle being highest, cause there the most weight is pressing.

Near to the surface the pressure builts up nearly proportionally to the distance between that point and the center of gravity. Initally therefore if you go down twice as deep, the pressure doubles.
This is near the surface. But further down, this built up gets slower (going further down, doubling the depth, will less then double the pressure), cause the effective force of gravity is becoming smaller.
Near the center therefore is it expected that the pressure become near to a constant value, because the force of gravity approaches zero there. Which means we would not notice much difference in the pressure at the center and a few kilometers near the center. In the center the pressure will reach it's maximum.

(We neglect here other forces that are exerted on the material, due to heat and convection streams, etc.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heusdens it doesn't matter how many times you tell me the wrong answer, it is still the wrong answer.

Take a 60 Metric tonne rock, place it on the moon, it weights in at 10 metric tonnes, place it at the Gravitational Absent Spatial Point, (GASP) (that is the Langerian point, between the earth and the moon) and it weights NOTHING, but it still has gravitational energy and is attracted towards one, or the other, the Earth, or the Moon.

So heusdens, in Newtons proof, a very small part of the matter in the outer shell is what generates all of the Earth's gravity.

Now, the weighting of the earth is done from the measure of the G force, since only a small percentage of the mass is actually generating that 'weight', (the rest, according to you, is 'self canceled(ling)) hence the true weight of the planet is factors larger then is the presently believed weight, and the density error problem also becomes factors larger, in accordance with the needed missing mass that you say 'self cancels', so your density error goes way up from the 5000 kg per m3, to the fact of, well, that shell game explaination I wrote up on the other page works out to about 20% of the outer shell as effective gravity generator, hence we need to multiply by 5 x's the density per m3, so you now need to prove that you have the ability to pressurize the mass to approx. 25,000 kg per m3!

Oooops, remember, the rock on the outer shell has been measured and proven, and tested, to be about 3000 kg per m3, so WOW, have you ever got a density problem NOW!

Also, (according to your promotion/theory) the Sun weights in at way more then we currently think, as does all of the rest of the Stars, the Galaxies, the universe's mass, and so on, and so on..........


Sorry, (not really) but you are espousing the wrong answer as it might sound really nice, but it does not match the reality that has been measured and observed.

Oh, just in case you have missed how physics works, reality in it's presentation of the facts, ALWAYS Wins!!


EDIT SP AND GRAMMER!

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok, let's try this more correct approach.

I made a logical fallacy here, I will admit. There is gravity present at the center. Remember, gravity is a force, hence it is a vector. All the forces are directed towards the center, thus it is present there. However, the fashion it is present is a thing called equillibrium. If anything moves one direction or the other, the resulting imbalance in gravitational forces will cause it to return to where it was...which is, back in the center of gravity. That is the real thing. The pressure is merely the result of compression by the weight from above (which is a result of the gravity vectors going downward), and the heat is the manifestation of of the friction, pressure, and part of the opposite reaction bit. It is what drives the plate techtonics, etc. That is the real answer. The pressure does not exist as a seperate entity that would blow apart the earth or anything. It is caused by the gravity, which yes, does exist at the center, but the center is a special state referred to as equillibrium.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ok, let's try this more correct approach.

I made a logical fallacy here, I will admit. There is gravity present at the center. Remember, gravity is a force, hence it is a vector. All the forces are directed towards the center, thus it is present there. However, the fashion it is present is a thing called equillibrium. If anything moves one direction or the other, the resulting imbalance in gravitational forces will cause it to return to where it was...which is, back in the center of gravity. That is the real thing. The pressure is merely the result of compression by the weight from above (which is a result of the gravity vectors going downward), and the heat is the manifestation of of the friction, pressure, and part of the opposite reaction bit. It is what drives the plate techtonics, etc. That is the real answer. The pressure does not exist as a seperate entity that would blow apart the earth or anything. It is caused by the gravity, which yes, does exist at the center, but the center is a special state referred to as equillibrium.

I like the word equilibrium for this! When I was a kid, I built electronic circuits. When I started learning physics about age 12, the teacher, a PhD, told me I was ignorant of electronics because I used the word "voltage". He said I must call it "potential difference, p.d.", but it's still measured as volts! Then in chemistry, the teacher said she didn't use either potential difference or voltage, but "electromotive force, e.m.f.", again measured in volts. So loads of different terms for the same thing!

None of them had any clear notion of what electricity was. They taught that it was electrons drifting at the calculated speed of 1 millimetre per second. But even if the entire mass of a wire was conduction electrons, it wouldn't carry enough kinetic energy to light a bulb travelling at only 1 mm/second. In fact, electricity is electromagnetic wave energy guided by the wires, and the current is a secondary effect. But they don't teach that, preferring hocus pocus naming games to assert authority in spite of ignorance.

The equilibrium in the centre of gravity is an equilibrium of space pressure from every direction. [:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

for the sake of argument (and appeasement :p) that is why I said the force vectors were directed downward, leaving it open to be push or pull (I still think pull!). But indeed, it is an equilibrium.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Heusdens it doesn't matter how many times you tell me the wrong answer, it is still the wrong answer.

Take a 60 Metric tonne rock, place it on the moon, it weights in at 10 metric tonnes, place it at the Gravitational Absent Spatial Point, (GASP) (that is the Langerian point, between the earth and the moon) and it weights NOTHING, but it still has gravitational energy and is attracted towards one, or the other, the Earth, or the Moon.

So heusdens, in Newtons proof, a very small part of the matter in the outer shell is what generates all of the Earth's gravity.

Now, the weighting of the earth is done from the measure of the G force, since only a small percentage of the mass is actually generating that 'weight', (the rest, according to you, is 'self canceled(ling)) hence the true weight of the planet is factors larger then is the presently believed weight, and the density error problem also becomes factors larger, in accordance with the needed missing mass that you say 'self cancels', so your density error goes way up from the 5000 kg per m3, to the fact of, well, that shell game explaination I wrote up on the other page works out to about 20% of the outer shell as effective gravity generator, hence we need to multiply by 5 x's the density per m3, so you now need to prove that you have the ability to pressurize the mass to approx. 25,000 kg per m3!

Oooops, remember, the rock on the outer shell has been measured and proven, and tested, to be about 3000 kg per m3, so WOW, have you ever got a density problem NOW!

Also, (according to your promotion/theory) the Sun weights in at way more then we currently think, as does all of the rest of the Stars, the Galaxies, the universe's mass, and so on, and so on..........


Sorry, (not really) but you are espousing the wrong answer as it might sound really nice, but it does not match the reality that has been measured and observed.

Oh, just in case you have missed how physics works, reality in it's presentation of the facts, ALWAYS Wins!!


EDIT SP AND GRAMMER!

You have a great talent for misinterpreting someone else's ideas.

From where comes your idea that when standing outside of the earth, any of the gravitational interactions between some mass and that of the earth would cancel out? Where was it stated? Nowhere! You made this up in your own mind.

I hold this dicussion on here with you no longer fruitfull, cause you keep misinterpreting me.

Here is something for you to figure out. Suppose you are standing in the middle of earth, at it's gravitational center.
Now your belief is that there is still a nett gravitational force.

It can be proven very easily however that right at the center, all forces of gravity of all the mass of earth, cancel out.
Now take any part of the earth mass, and calculate this mass and it's distance to the center of gravity. That will enable you to calculate the force of gravity from that part of earth's mass. Which is not zero. But at the exact opposite direction, we will find an equal mass at equal distance. This follows the fact that the density of earth at any specific depth is more or less the same, and the earth is a round spherical object. So we can deconstruct all of earth's mass into small parts (as small as you want) and calculate the force of gravity from all parts. Since we always can find for every force vector an equal and exactly opposite directed force vector, this means that the resulting force of gravity exactly results in a force of zero.

Go calculate that yourself, and don't come back before you done that for every individual atom of earth!

[heusdens]

Mr. Parson, you are obviously confusing on two different things.

1. The gravity as is excerted on all objects on the earth surface is caused by ALL THE MASS of earth, not just the outer surface layers. You just have to calculate all the force vectors from all the mass of earth, which all contribute to a nett force of gravity. Nothing cancels out there, as long as you are standing on or above the surface.

2. Inside earth, the gravity caused by all the mass in the outer sphere of earth (above that point inside earth), cancels out AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT. This cause the force of gravity to drop down, as deeper on gets, and become effectively zero at the center.


Since you are obviously confused between these two things, we can better state that you have no idea how gravity works.
The fact that at earth's center, all forces of gravity cancel out, does not mean as you seem to believe, that the mass inside earth would not contribute to the force of gravity that is excerted on objects outside or on the earth's surface.

If you are not able of understanding that, better take some physics courses again on gravity.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
for the sake of argument (and appeasement :p) that is why I said the force vectors were directed downward, leaving it open to be push or pull (I still think pull!). But indeed, it is an equilibrium.

The point of this forum is not to descend into the nonsense of ambiguity, such as push or pull, but to prove the absolute answer.

You may like to live in an ambiguous, vague, wishy-washy, "I-can't-see-any-ships-on-the-horizon" imaginary world, but everyone else doesn't have to. Whoops, the editors of journals who value antiquity more than progress are on the desert island with you. You all don't want to see the proof of progress on the horizon, so you all agree conveniently to ignore it. Wait until it comes up close and grounds on your little island. Then you will find it harder to ignore! [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Nigel
The point of this forum is not to descend into the nonsense of ambiguity, such as push or pull, but to prove the absolute answer.

You may like to live in an ambiguous, vague, wishy-washy, "I-can't-see-any-ships-on-the-horizon" imaginary world, but everyone else doesn't have to. Whoops, the editors of journals who value antiquity more than progress are on the desert island with you. You all don't want to see the proof of progress on the horizon, so you all agree conveniently to ignore it. Wait until it comes up close and grounds on your little island. Then you will find it harder to ignore! [:)]

I would argue that the real answer may not be known. As long as our mental model of a gravity either as a pull from all matter towards all matter, or a pull from non-matter on matter, cause the exact same laws of gravity, nobody can tell, and there isn't any meaning in either answer.

The only way in which we could distinguish between the two is if there are specific instants in which they differ and which can be observed.

So far I have not heard the claim that pushing gravity predicts different behaviour of matter.

[Brad_Ad23]

Well I for one am still waiting for an explination of how pushing gravity explains orbits and the 5 L points in any 2 body orbital system (more so the 5 L points).

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
I would argue that the real answer may not be known. As long as our mental model of a gravity either as a pull from all matter towards all matter, or a pull from non-matter on matter, cause the exact same laws of gravity, nobody can tell, and there isn't any meaning in either answer.

The only way in which we could distinguish between the two is if there are specific instants in which they differ and which can be observed.

So far I have not heard the claim that pushing gravity predicts different behaviour of matter.

Read the replies I posted on previous pages, or the paper. The proof is proven by facts at each stage. The proof is compatible with general relativity by substituting in the proven expression for G, which is a prediction different from the speculations made by Einstein's, which have fallen through with Dr Perlmutter's discovery that the gravitational retardation of distant supernonae does not conform to the Einstein predictions. In any case, the proof I put forward, years before Perlmutter's experimental confirmation, is the only proof of gravity. It eliminates any other sort of explanation by being the actual proof. If you want another pseudo-science "law" of say elastic pushing (which would imply a force which increases as you get further away instead of decreasing and is therefore total rubbish) then you are adding an unnecessary "law" to the proven mechanism. You do not double your weight by inventing unproven "laws". The cause of gravity is proven. Bigots always talk drivel, instead of proving their case.[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well I for one am still waiting for an explination of how pushing gravity explains orbits and the 5 L points in any 2 body orbital system (more so the 5 L points).

The proof of the cause of gravity derermines G. You don't need a separate proof for why your brain falls out of your ear on to the floor, any more for orbital points! Once you prove the cause, you can calculate anything with in by substituting the equation for G into the Newtonial or Einstein gravity equations.[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well I for one am still waiting for an explination of how pushing gravity explains orbits and the 5 L points in any 2 body orbital system (more so the 5 L points).

The proof of the cause of gravity determines G. You don't need a separate proof for why your brain falls out of your ear on to the floor, any more for orbital points! Once you prove the cause, you can calculate anything by substituting the equation for G into the Newtonian or Einstein gravity equations.[:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

Not entirely true Nigel---your pushing method doesn't seem compatable with the 5 L points which are a result from attractions ( I am assuming here that you do know what L points are, and would appreciate a real answer).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Heusdens (or whomever you *really* are)

Go calculate that yourself, and don't come back before you done that for every individual atom of earth!

Follow your own advice!

Lets see, 1 + 1n'th degree, acutally the finite number of atoms in the Earths Mass = 1, being G, as is the known measure of "gravity" (suface)
that's actually this agrument.....

Originally posted by Heusdens (or whomever you **really** are)
1. The gravity as is excerted on all objects on the earth surface is caused by ALL THE MASS of earth, not just the outer surface layers. You just have to calculate all the force vectors from all the mass of earth, which all contribute to a nett force of gravity. Nothing cancels out there, as long as you are standing on or above the surface.

Followed by the 'other' arguement, wherein............

1 + (1-1)n'th degree, acutally, some "undefined number of atoms"(self canceling to "zero gravitational effect") in the Earths Mass (still) = 1, being G, as is the known measure of "gravity" (suface)
(or 1 + zero = 1, and it's the same "one" you find, when you sum all of it accurately, even thought you are cancelling an enormous amount of the measurable mass)

Which is this argument of YOURS..................
Originally posted by Heusdens (or whomever you **really** are)
2. Inside earth, the gravity caused by all the mass in the outer sphere of earth (above that point inside earth), cancels out AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT. This cause the force of gravity to drop down, as deeper on gets, and become effectively zero at the center.

So Heusdens,
Heusdens words, NOT Newtons

you are obviously confusing

I would agree that, that is the truth about you......and

Heusdens words

on two different things

Cause ya are, and your not accounting for reality, in anything other then a duplicitous manner.......case ya missed it, reality speaks its 'facts' with only "one" voice, it's existance, the self evident truth that it is!

Think ya missed that, know it actually, ya missed the point which is the zero, and the energy that comes out of that/this, my point, (?) exactly!

At least you stopped wasting server space telling me about what you think I don't know about what Sir Isaac Newton, himself, stated, notice too that you haven't cited his work, at least not to his accreditation, under his name, as he wrote it, first, how many learned years ago? how much learning time has passed since he had to choose a logical argument, without any further evidence to back any choice, I think he choose well from what he had available to him.

Edit 1 + (1-1)[sup]n'th degree, from it's, 1 + 1(-1)[sup]n'th degree, which was a wrong placement of the 1 (one!) So Sorry.........

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Not entirely true Nigel---your pushing method doesn't seem compatable with the 5 L points which are a result from attractions ( I am assuming here that you do know what L points are, and would appreciate a real answer).

I don't have a "pushing method". Just a proof of the cause of gravity. If you want to talk about the points of Lagrange discuss it in another forum tread, it has nothing to do with the proof of the cause of gravity, any more than other people's ideas about the earth's pressure internally.

I'm still waiting for you to answer all my previous replies to your bogus questions...[:)]


In between any two bodies where they shield one another equally, you will get points where the gravity cancels. This happens independently of whether you have unexplained G in F = mMG/R^2, or whether you have a proof of the cause of gravity with G being equal to 3/4 of the square of the Hubble constant divided by the product of pi and the density of the universe.

Orbits similarly occur where the gravity is balanced by the inertial acceleration of a body going around in a circle, which is a = (v^2)/R.

When you combine gravity a = MG/R^2 with a = (v^2)/R, you get the speed an orbital satellite must go to stay in orbit.

But you are just obfuscating the cause of gravity by bringing up examples such as I have just explained above. Your objective is pseudo-science. Please refrain from wasting valuable space.[:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

The L points are caused by gravity! And two-bit replies don't cut it in science. If you claim you don't propose a pushing method then why for pete's sake have you continually said it is an isotropic pressure that pushes on objects but behind mass which sheilds somehow from this isotropic pressure does an imbalance exist? That is a pushing mechanism to me. What you did was come up with a mathematical proof. Good for you. Once others in the scientific community who specialize in gravity say "Hey he's onto something" then maybe I'll agree your mathematical proof is physical reality, but seeing as it was rejected from top-notch science journals (which as a result cause you to claim they are maintaining some illusionary status quo, that would not exist in your eyes if they published your idea (notice a bit of a fallacy here?)) I doubt that will happen. I still salute you for your mathematics, but not your physics.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The L points are caused by gravity! And two-bit replies don't cut it in science. If you claim you don't propose a pushing method then why for pete's sake have you continually said it is an isotropic pressure that pushes on objects but behind mass which sheilds somehow from this isotropic pressure does an imbalance exist? That is a pushing mechanism to me. What you did was come up with a mathematical proof. Good for you. Once others in the scientific community who specialize in gravity say "Hey he's onto something" then maybe I'll agree your mathematical proof is physical reality, but seeing as it was rejected from top-notch science journals (which as a result cause you to claim they are maintaining some illusionary status quo, that would not exist in your eyes if they published your idea (notice a bit of a fallacy here?)) I doubt that will happen. I still salute you for your mathematics, but not your physics.

The all round pressure by the fabric of space as proven by Einstein, Leyden, 1920, Catt in electromagnetic theory of 377 ohm vacuum dielectric in mutual induction problems in computer architecture design at Motorola in 1967 (IEEE Trans. EC-16, 1967), and even "General Relativity" (Cambridge University Press book) author Bernard Schutz, who states "the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid..." (pp.89-90).

The proof for the cause of gravity is mathematical. Give credit for the physics to Dr Einstein, Dr Catt, and Dr Schutz. My work has established not the Einstein-Catt-Schultz physics, but the mechanism behind it, which turns out to require mathematics. When you are criticising the physics of the fabric of space as the cause of gravity you are not attacking me.

[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The L points are caused by gravity! And two-bit replies don't cut it in science. If you claim you don't propose a pushing method then why for pete's sake have you continually said it is an isotropic pressure that pushes on objects but behind mass which sheilds somehow from this isotropic pressure does an imbalance exist? That is a pushing mechanism to me. What you did was come up with a mathematical proof. Good for you. Once others in the scientific community who specialize in gravity say "Hey he's onto something" then maybe I'll agree your mathematical proof is physical reality, but seeing as it was rejected from top-notch science journals (which as a result cause you to claim they are maintaining some illusionary status quo, that would not exist in your eyes if they published your idea (notice a bit of a fallacy here?)) I doubt that will happen. I still salute you for your mathematics, but not your physics.

I repeat:
In between any two bodies where they shield one another equally, you will get points where the gravity cancels. This happens independently of whether you have unexplained G in F = mMG/R^2, or whether you have a proof of the cause of gravity with G being equal to 3/4 of the square of the Hubble constant divided by the product of pi and the density of the universe.

Orbits similarly occur where the gravity is balanced by the inertial acceleration of a body going around in a circle, which is a = (v^2)/R.

When you combine gravity a = MG/R^2 with a = (v^2)/R, you get the speed an orbital satellite must go to stay in orbit.

But you are just obfuscating the cause of gravity by bringing up examples such as I have just explained above. Your objective is pseudo-science. Please refrain from wasting valuable space[:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

My objective is hardly pseudo. Again, I point out, that 2 of the L points are 60 degrees ahead and behind the orbiting body (hence direct shielding is not possible). I will say, that just the mathematics for G may be stable, but I'll have to do some rechecking, however I have work to go to for now, so I'll look after.

As for it being a perfect fluid, I believe somewhere along the lines in the many intervening years, that was dropped for some reason or another, otherwise it would definitly be held onto. Again, I will look into it.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Origianlly posted by Nigel

I don't have a "pushing method". Just a proof of the cause of gravity. If you want to talk about the points of Lagrange discuss it in another forum tread, it has nothing to do with the proof of the cause of gravity, any more than other people's ideas about the earth's pressure internally.

Hey buddy, if your 'proof' of the "Cause of Gravity", is right, then it must be able to describe all gravitational events and phenomenon, internal pressure of the Earth, Langarian points, and all of what is associated with what gravity does, otherwise, It Ain't no description of the CAUSE of gravity, not if it cannot describe the results!!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hey buddy, if your 'proof' of the "Cause of Gravity", is right, then it must be able to describe all gravitational events and phenomenon, internal pressure of the Earth, Langarian points, and all of what is associated with what gravity does, otherwise, It Ain't no description of the CAUSE of gravity, not if it cannot describe the results!!

Hey, Mr. Robin Parsons. Have you calculated the force of gravity, the sum of all vectors from any atom in earth to the center of gravitation, already?

We had an agreement you would not return here before you done that calculation!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Follow your own advice!

Lets see, 1 + 1n'th degree, acutally the finite number of atoms in the Earths Mass = 1, being G, as is the known measure of "gravity" (suface)
that's actually this agrument.....



Followed by the 'other' arguement, wherein............

1 + (1-1)n'th degree, acutally, some "undefined number of atoms"(self canceling to "zero gravitational effect") in the Earths Mass (still) = 1, being G, as is the known measure of "gravity" (suface)
(or 1 + zero = 1, and it's the same "one" you find, when you sum all of it accurately, even thought you are cancelling an enormous amount of the measurable mass)

Which is this argument of YOURS..................


So Heusdens,


I would agree that, that is the truth about you......and



Cause ya are, and your not accounting for reality, in anything other then a duplicitous manner.......case ya missed it, reality speaks its 'facts' with only "one" voice, it's existance, the self evident truth that it is!

Think ya missed that, know it actually, ya missed the point which is the zero, and the energy that comes out of that/this, my point, (?) exactly!

At least you stopped wasting server space telling me about what you think I don't know about what Sir Isaac Newton, himself, stated, notice too that you haven't cited his work, at least not to his accreditation, under his name, as he wrote it, first, how many learned years ago? how much learning time has passed since he had to choose a logical argument, without any further evidence to back any choice, I think he choose well from what he had available to him.

Edit 1 + (1-1)[sup]n'th degree, from it's, 1 + 1(-1)[sup]n'th degree, which was a wrong placement of the 1 (one!) So Sorry.........


You have done no calcucalation. What in fact did you calculate?
The value of G??????

We are not interested in the value of G (since it's a constant, and must be the same everywhere), but we are only interested in the force of gravity at the center of gravity of earth.

We know that all the force vectors for the gravity that is excerted by earth, are directed towards the center of gravity.

Suppose we would have a resultant force of gravity at that center of gravity. Since it's a vector, it hasd a magnitude and a direction. So where would that force vector be directed to?

It can only point to the center of gravity. And therefore this vector is zero at the center of gravity, cause it has nowhere to direct to, and neither it has magnitude. The mathematical proof is based on the fact that earth is a sphere and at every distance from the center of gravity, the density of matter is equal at that shell (density can vary only according to the distance towards the center).
Of course, the earth ain't that perfect, and therefore we can expect the center of gravity to be not at the exact spot as might be expected from the geometrical shape of the earth, but somewhere near that spot. Nevertheless the mathematical proof workds out the same, since the earth HAS a center of gravity.
By definition the force of gravity AT the center of gravity can not be anything else but ZERO.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hey buddy, if your 'proof' of the "Cause of Gravity", is right, then it must be able to describe all gravitational events and phenomenon, internal pressure of the Earth, Langarian points, and all of what is associated with what gravity does, otherwise, It Ain't no description of the CAUSE of gravity, not if it cannot describe the results!!

Wrong. It describes everything as Einstein does, because it provides the source for Einstein's field, and it corrects a problem in Einstein's field equation.

Suppose I have the proof of how a computer works: a computer works by electronics. You then say that your home-made program keeps crashing and that my theory must, in terms of electronics, explain why your application is bugged. You are just plain wrong. I do not need to explain why your application of a computer crashes using electronics. It is sufficient for me to prove the cause. Your applications to Lagrange and the earth's pressure are things which when I answer, you ignore. You might as well try to debunk organic chemistry on the basis that life is complicated, or to debunk nuclear physics because quark theory does not get into calculating the exact half life of every isotope. It is just missing the point altogether. Have you actually read the proof yet or not?

In addition, I have bent over backwards to answer the queries raised even when they have nothing to do with the proof of the cause of gravity. When I do, my reply is just ignored and another bogus querie is raised!

[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

Your applications to Lagrange and the earth's pressure are things which when I answer, you ignore.

Huh??

In this thread the discourse turned, slighty, towards one of the evidential objects that would be a place to look to see gravities operation. You were not addressed with respect to Lagrange, not by me, (to my recollection, need I look?) as my approach to you has been from the surface area issue, one you seemingly cannot resolve. (Yes I heard you, read deeper, no thanks!)

As for Earth's pressure, you have stated it is a sheilding from within the earth which leaves no gravitational pressurization which is clearly lacking as an explanation of how gravity works, which is as a result of it's cause, hence your application is suspect, at best, completley wrong, otherwise, so..........

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Aside from that Nigel, you need to explain how this image arises using your "push force from space", equally, and oppositely, reacted upon by your "sheilding from the planet"

From this site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1668872.stm

This image.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1665000/images/_1668872_lumpyearth300.jpg

Sorry it won't reproduce the image, but it's there you can go see for yourself.

Thats the edit

So we will try here,

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/features/watkins.html

with this image.......

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/hi-res/bumpyearth.jpg

Still no linking, but you can still look there....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Hey, Mr. Robin Parsons. Have you calculated the force of gravity, the sum of all vectors from any atom in earth to the center of gravitation, already?

We had an agreement you would not return here before you done that calculation!

An agreement?? Only in your head, and as I had said, take your own advice!

Other then that, you are wasting server space repeating yourself, "ad absurdum", "ad studidum", "ad redundum", and you still have a massive pressurization problem with the math, as you are doing it, then again, maybe that is the problem you have never done it.

Or was it my use of the word 'duplicite'? that you don't understand what that really means? how that proves your method of math is wrong, really wrong!

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Aside from that Nigel, you need to explain how this image arises using your "push force from space", equally, and oppositely, reacted upon by your "sheilding from the planet"

From this site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1668872.stm

This image.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1665000/images/_1668872_lumpyearth300.jpg

Sorry it won't reproduce the image, but it's there you can go see for yourself.

Thats the edit

So we will try here,

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/features/watkins.html

with this image.......

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/hi-res/bumpyearth.jpg

Still no linking, but you can still look there....

Wrong. It describes everything as Einstein does, because it provides the source for Einstein's field, and it corrects a problem in Einstein's field equation.

Suppose I have the proof of how a computer works: a computer works by electronics. You then say that your home-made program keeps crashing and that my theory must, in terms of electronics, explain why your application is bugged. You are just plain wrong. I do not need to explain why your application of a computer crashes using electronics. It is sufficient for me to prove the cause. Your applications to Lagrange and the earth's pressure are things which when I answer, you ignore. You might as well try to debunk organic chemistry on the basis that life is complicated, or to debunk nuclear physics because quark theory does not get into calculating the exact half life of every isotope. It is just missing the point altogether. Have you actually read the proof yet or not?

In addition, I have bent over backwards to answer the queries raised even when they have nothing to do with the proof of the cause of gravity. When I do, my reply is just ignored and another bogus querie is raised!
[;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Huh??

In this thread the discourse turned, slighty, towards one of the evidential objects that would be a place to look to see gravities operation. You were not addressed with respect to Lagrange, not by me, (to my recollection, need I look?) as my approach to you has been from the surface area issue, one you seemingly cannot resolve. (Yes I heard you, read deeper, no thanks!)

As for Earth's pressure, you have stated it is a sheilding from within the earth which leaves no gravitational pressurization which is clearly lacking as an explanation of how gravity works, which is as a result of it's cause, hence your application is suspect, at best, completley wrong, otherwise, so..........

Wrong. It describes everything as Einstein does, because it provides the source for Einstein's field, and it corrects a problem in Einstein's field equation.

Suppose I have the proof of how a computer works: a computer works by electronics. You then say that your home-made program keeps crashing and that my theory must, in terms of electronics, explain why your application is bugged. You are just plain wrong. I do not need to explain why your application of a computer crashes using electronics. It is sufficient for me to prove the cause. Your applications to Lagrange and the earth's pressure are things which when I answer, you ignore. You might as well try to debunk organic chemistry on the basis that life is complicated, or to debunk nuclear physics because quark theory does not get into calculating the exact half life of every isotope. It is just missing the point altogether. Have you actually read the proof yet or not?

In addition, I have bent over backwards to answer the queries raised even when they have nothing to do with the proof of the cause of gravity. When I do, my reply is just ignored and another bogus querie is raised!
[a)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
An agreement?? Only in your head, and as I had said, take your own advice!

Other then that, you are wasting server space repeating yourself, "ad absurdum", "ad studidum", "ad redundum", and you still have a massive pressurization problem with the math, as you are doing it, then again, maybe that is the problem you have never done it.

Or was it my use of the word 'duplicite'? that you don't understand what that really means? how that proves your method of math is wrong, really wrong!

If there is someone misusing server space, and repeating himself, then it's you.

I don't have a massive pressure problem. I already explained what caused the pressure. It's because all the mass that DOES have weight ABOVE the center of gravity, that is pushing there.

There is absolutely no problem with that.

In fact there is only ONE problem, and it is in YOUR head.
Because in YOUR head, at the CENTER of gravity, there is a nett force of gravity.

But we would be very pleased to know what the DIRECTION of that force would be then. Where else could it direct to, other then the very same CENTER of gravity itself?
According to YOUR claim there is a nett force of gravity, and since force is a vector, we like to know: WHAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE FORCE OF GRAVITY AT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY ITSELF?

Don't come back with the answer that "it directs to the CENTER of gravity", cause then we know for sure, you do not understand vectors.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Right here ¤Here¤ (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2500)

See Ya in the funny papers, cause you are comical with your duplicite responces.

(Integrals comments aside)

[heusdens]

You are not responding the question.

The question remains wether at the center of gravity there is any gravity.

If you claim that there is a nett force of gravity in the center (which is something different from there being a lot of pressure there, cause the pressure is not a local effect, but an effect of all the gravity withing the entire mass pulling on all the mass in the direction of the center of gravity) then why can't you simply state what direction this force is directed to?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
You are not responding the question.

The question remains wether at the center of gravity there is any gravity.

If you claim that there is a nett force of gravity in the center (which is something different from there being a lot of pressure there, cause the pressure is not a local effect, but an effect of all the gravity withing the entire mass pulling on all the mass in the direction of the center of gravity) then why can't you simply state what direction this force is directed to?

That answer is in the link I provided, that you either haven't read it, or simply don't know, that is NOT my fault.

The link answers your question.

Ps, your responce above is, well, confusing/confused, to say the least, as the emboldened part tells of your duplicity of thought, inasmuch as you keep stating that your gravitational field "self cancels", yet you tell of it pulling all of the mass to the center of gravity, which should be somewhere where there should still be gravity, otherwise it cannot pull it there.

By Zero Point Energy, the G/T cyclic, that I have mentioned, in this thread as well, it is shortwaved, and cycled back out as thermal energy, that is where the gravitational energy, culmatively, is directed.

Can you figure that one out?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That answer is in the link I provided, that you either haven't read it, or simply don't know, that is NOT my fault.

The link answers your question.

Ps, your responce above is, well, confusing/confused, to say the least, as the emboldened part tells of your duplicity of thought, inasmuch as you keep stating that your gravitational field "self cancels", yet you tell of it pulling all of the mass to the center of gravity, which should be somewhere where there should still be gravity, otherwise it cannot pull it there.

By Zero Point Energy, the G/T cyclic, that I have mentioned, in this thread as well, it is shortwaved, and cycled back out as thermal energy, that is where the gravitational energy, culmatively, is directed.

Can you figure that one out?

The link does not answer this precise topic, and the pressurization thing, is besided the topic. We are not concerned here with the question wether pressurization and the force of gravity can cause heat and therefore ignite thermo nuclear reactions, but we were dealing with the isse of the magnituded and direction of the force of gravity between a mass at the precise location of the center of gravity, and all of the mass of earth.

You have a very strange way of perceiving gravity. In your mind, since all of the force of gravity is directed towards the center of gravity, then acc. to your mind "there must be a lot of gravity right there at the center, else we don't understand the pull".
If that would be the case, then that would be a very strange phenomena, since either the resulting force vector at the center of gravity would not be directed towards the center of gravity (but since all directions at the exact middle point of a sphere are equal, where could it be directed to) or it would be directed towards the center of gravity, in which case is is directed towards it self, and hence we neither know of it's direction.
Stated physically, the acceleration (g) due to the force of gravity at the center of gravity is zero. IF THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE, THEN MATTER AT THE PRECISE LOCATION OF THE CENTER OF GRAVITY WOULD BE PULLED AWAY FROM THAT LOCATION.

You make gravity into something it is not. Gravity is just a pull between any massive objects, no matter how big or small.

Imagine this point of center of gravity. We have a test mass there. And now we want to calculate the magnitude and direction of the force of gravity on that mass, caused by the gravitational pull of all of earth's mass.

For large masses, we can simplify the calculations by modelling the massive object as being a point mass. So imagine that instead of this big earth, we have all mass concentrated at the center of gravititation. For all calculations OUTSIDE of the earth's surface, this works well, the calculation results are the same. But INSIDE earth we can no longer assume that all mass of earh is concentrated at the center of gravity. Which is what you do, and therefore state that the acceleration due to the force of gravity (g) is the same deep down, and even at the center of gravity, as it is on the surface.
Fact is: it is not. g is dropping down to zero when it reaches the center of earth. If earth would have a constant density, the relation would be that g drops down to zero exactly proportional to the distance to the center of gravity (half the radius of earth, half the value of g). Since the density (due to pressure) is increasing further down however, g drops down slower then that, but despite this, at the center of gravity g is zero.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
My objective is hardly pseudo. Again, I point out, that 2 of the L points are 60 degrees ahead and behind the orbiting body (hence direct shielding is not possible). I will say, that just the mathematics for G may be stable, but I'll have to do some rechecking, however I have work to go to for now, so I'll look after.

As for it being a perfect fluid, I believe somewhere along the lines in the many intervening years, that was dropped for some reason or another, otherwise it would definitly be held onto. Again, I will look into it.

Any disagreement between Lagrange and the mechanism of gravity indicates an error in Lagrange. Equal shielding from space pressure will exist on both sides of bodies in certain locations, so some Lagrange points will exist in reality. Others may not, if they are based just on Newton's empirical equation with no understanding behind it. You need to realise that not all theoretical predictions of Newton's theory have been proven.

In particular, Newton's "theory" (equation) argued that everything moving away from us in the universe will be attracted back by gravity and hence slowed down if not actually pulled back. I showed that this was not the case in a letter to "Electronics World" in 1996, because the mechanism for gravity is the inward motion of the fabric of space in response to surrounding expansion. At great distances, thus, there is no surrounding expansion and thus no gravity slowing things down.

Nature refused to even have the paper reviewed, they were too clever to allow a scientific proof and prediction to be published. If correct, it would affect funding of false and speculative (unproven) trash like string theory, which they had placed all their money on. They could not afford to allow themselves to lose the gamble, so they used their power to cover-up, convinced that journalists would be too awed by the maths to investigate the fraud.

In 1998, about two years after prediction, Dr Saul Perlmutter confirmed it. He used CCD computerised telescopes to detect and determine the redshifts of very distant supernovas. I then again submitted the paper to Nature. Again they were too wise to publish a scientific proof, and opted to publish a load of unproven, ad hoc, speculations instead. Nature is the guardian of existing science, not progress. By publishing unproven, speculative, ad hoc nonsense, it prevents progress, guarding existing science from serious modification and correction.

Notice that the existing trash is defended by people like you. You consider that "science" means what currently passes for knowledge.

It would be like going back to 1600, the scientific revolution, and finding that progress was prevented by people who were "pro-science". Their understanding of science, Ptolemy's epicyclical earth-centred system, would be what they were defending. They would simply claim that anyone who had an advance which was so big as to sweep it away was "anti-science". The problem here is obviously the lack of vision that science is a progressive discipline, in other words. So we must define "science" to avoid confusion.

Your definition of "science" is "status quo, speculative, unexplained equations dressed up as God's laws and mystical theories of everything".

My definition of "science" is "explanatory, understandable, comprehendable, step-by-step proof, confirmed and distinguished from speculative ad hoc guesswork by experimental confirmation."

For Lagrange's points of orbital stability, you will not find much proof. They have not been experimentally investigated. They are a speculation based on the existing model, and as such are no attack on a new model. You might as well use a false prediction of epicycles, which was unproven, to disprove the solar system theory.#

As I say, some Lagrange points will occur in either model, because of shielding by two masses cancelling out at certain places. If a difference arises, it is not proven that the error is with the new advance unless the existence of the discrepancy in reality is established. As I have said to Mr Robbins, the proof of the cause of gravity stands by itself. The fact that molecular chemistry does not explain how life began or predict how a brian works, or that nuclear quark physics does not predict the measured half life of cobalt-60, or that you cannot explain high-level software in terms of hardware electronics, does not debunk chemistry, physics, and electronics.

[:)]

[Nigel]

[Nigel]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heusdens I answered the question, (apparently you cannot read) the force (the vectors) is re-directed, back out, as heat!

Apparently you missed that one completely, no surprise!

Further, in you shell theory of gravitational cancelation, being somewhat familiar with wave cancelation theories, how does the wave, from one side of the planet, cancel the wave, from the other side of the planet, while still having to travel through the planet (and it's center of gravity, and all of the mass that is, still, there) without changing form? Or does it occur without travel? or does it occur, well, what?, magically??

If you are unsure of the waveform thing, look for the LIGO page, presently under construction, the "Large Interferometer Gravitational Observatory", the search for definitive proof of the 'waveform thing'.

Nigel, (this is the problem, two conversations at once) I see you now are telling that gravity is "proportional to mass", but your equations use surface area to approportion this force, isn't this a contradiction?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Apparently the link no longer will take you to the explaination as the mentor in that forum sems to have a problem with the introduction of valid scientific theories that he personally doesn't understand.

How sad, and anti-science, to attempt to invalidate a statement of the thoughts/theory, as I have found it's application, of reputable/respected Physicists, that was presented on televison, with an disclaimer IN MY POST that said it as to be seen as ONLY for "entertainment value", what a joke that makes of all of these forums!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Heusdens I answered the question, (apparently you cannot read) the force (the vectors) is re-directed, back out, as heat!



Yeah! Whatever!

You simply convert a force into heat, which is something completely different.


Further, in you shell theory of gravitational cancelation, being somewhat familiar with wave cancelation theories, how does the wave, from one side of the planet, cancel the wave, from the other side of the planet, while still having to travel through the planet (and it's center of gravity, and all of the mass that is, still, there) without changing form? Or does it occur without travel? or does it occur, well, what?, magically??



Well I am sure you missed some physics classes. Ever heard of vector summation? Resultant force? Sounds familiar?

If you have two forces equal in magnitude but with opposing directions, the resultant force is zero.

Got that?


If not, I suppose you better go back to primary school then.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Apparently the link no longer will take you to the explaination as the mentor in that forum sems to have a problem with the introduction of valid scientific theories that he personally doesn't understand.

How sad, and anti-science, to attempt to invalidate a statement of the thoughts/theory, as I have found it's application, of reputable/respected Physicists, that was presented on televison, with an disclaimer IN MY POST that said it as to be seen as ONLY for "entertainment value", what a joke that makes of all of these forums!

YOU are the joke. A BIG JOKE!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah! Whatever!

You simply convert a force Try the word 'energy' into heat, which is something completely different.

Well I am sure you missed some physics classes. Ever heard of vector summation? Resultant force? Sounds familiar?

If you have two forces equal in magnitude but with opposing directions, the resultant force is zero.

Got that?


If not, I suppose you better go back to primary school then.

Yes very clear, but your vectors need to cross all of the matter that is in the planets body, it is NOT A SHELL, GOT THAT?

So explain the distal cancellation effect, how they cancel accross all of that FULL SPACE!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes very clear, but your vectors need to cross all of the matter that is in the planets body, it is NOT A SHELL, GOT THAT?



Vectors don't cross anything, they just denote symbols, which are handy when doing physics. THERE ARE NO VECTORS IN THE REAL WORLD, so why should we bother about them?

The "shell" thing was just a matter of a helping hand when doing the mathematical calculation. I was not suggesting that in the real world, the earth consits of embedding "shells".

And the force of gravitation itself is not energy, but it accomplishes work when this force is done over some distance.
When the force of gravity overcomes the inner pressure of the material, work is done, and this work is released in form of kinetic energy or heat. But that is just basic physics stuff.


So explain the distal cancellation effect, how they cancel accross all of that FULL SPACE!

Just vector summation in the mathematical model, and nothing more as that. The vectors are not across anything. We just model all the vectors exerted on some test mass at the center of earth, from the force of gravitation of all the matter components of earth's interior.
Right at that point, we imagine to have a whole bunch of vectors, in different directions and different magnitudes. Now the application of some math allow you to pick pairs of vectors with same magnitue and opposing directions, which sum to a resultant vector of zero magnitude, and the "proof" includes that this can be done in such a way that all the vectors can be removed. Resulting in this zero gravity force at the center.

Talking about energy and/or pressure, will just confuse this, and isn't any helpfull.


And if you STILL don't get this vector stuff then let's us try to do it in a more rigorous way. We just cut the earth in two equal halves, right through the center of gravity. Now both halves have their own center of gravity, which are at equal distances towards the center of gravity in opposing directions, and both halves have the same mass.
Note: this is a rough approximation, in reality there will be a slight differences in the physical measurements, but for sake of simplicity, we will cut our these details.

Now do your very best, and calculate for me the nett resultant force at the center of gravity. First calculate the distance towards the center of gravity of each halve, and then calculate the mass. Then use Newton's law: F = G m M / r 2.

Can you do that?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Don't need to, as you are using a system that doesn't apply to the reality as you keep assuming that you can simply ignore the fact of all of that mass that the waves of gravity would need to pass through, to get to each other, to cancel.

only works in the math department, NOT in the reality of the measured physical planet, as proven by the large steel ball known to be at it's center.

That was why I had previously brought up the 'Lagrange' point thing, to demonstrate what happens to a mass that is in a place where G = zero, it is pulled towards the nearest thing that has G energy/force, and away from the zero G point!

Just because you can mathematically cancel out all of the factors on a sheet of paper, does not prove that the planet behaves that way, especially when, in that paper proof, you are functioning in a manner that ignores completely the fact that the mass is full, of mass, not some hollow, partially empty shell, that you have drawn, on a sheet of paper.

BTW, I can, by God's Grace, imagine lots of things, that does not make them real, just imagined. This is supposed to be a discourse on the reality of it, not the imagined of it.

[Brad_Ad23]

Take some physics classes! His explination was dead on! And he is not ignoring the mass is full, nor does it matter at all that there is mass there! Why? Gravity is a summing force! When you have two gravity vectors of force you can always add them. If the directions are the same, you get a bigger (stronger force) vector, if they are opposing, you get less to zero force. Wow. Basic physics is fun when you actually understand and comprehend it!


And btw, when a mass is at a L point, it stays in the L point until acted upon by an unbalanced force. The L points, like the center of gravity represent something called an equillibrium.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Apparently Brad_AD23 you need help, and I don't think I am a the qualified proffesional who can give it to you.

Equilibrium cannot/will-not be held by an object that is in motion, and the Earth's center has a measured, and measurable, differential rotation, aside from the fact that it is in a fluid surrounded environment, hence would move towards anything gravitational, either by that gravitational objects pull, or by it's own gravity.

His math might be just fine, I suppose I could get a stick and go out and beat the face of the planet telling it it is not following Heusdens math, but that would be about as sensible as continuing this discourse, because, you don't follow reality, just what you can figure out, mathematically, in your own heads.

Doesn't make it the right answer though, and the idea that you can, on one hand, count all of the mass as making the gravity, then right after that try to tell me that, "Well, it all cancels out inside" demonstrates that you don't even see your own duplicite/incongrouity that is as illogical as you can get.

If it cancels, then only a percentage makes the full measurable gravity on the surface, otherwise all of it makes the surface gravity, but you cannot support both of those responces as true, least not in the real world, but it seems to work out in your heads, soooooo, follow your inner dream(s), see if it gets you anywhere, other then lost.

[Brad_Ad23]

First off: That doesn't matter.

Second, your statement about our duplicity merely demonstrates you really have no idea of a vector. However, since you are convinced you are right, go ahead and revolutionize the scientific community.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't need to, as you are using a system that doesn't apply to the reality as you keep assuming that you can simply ignore the fact of all of that mass that the waves of gravity would need to pass through, to get to each other, to cancel.

only works in the math department, NOT in the reality of the measured physical planet, as proven by the large steel ball known to be at it's center.

The "steel balll at the center" is neither a proof for your ideas nor a disproof of the fact that at this center, the force of gravity, or the acceleration of gravity, is zero.

And "gravitation waves" were never observed. Besides, it is a property of waves that they can cancel, as proved by interference of light.


That was why I had previously brought up the 'Lagrange' point thing, to demonstrate what happens to a mass that is in a place where G = zero, it is pulled towards the nearest thing that has G energy/force, and away from the zero G point!

Just because you can mathematically cancel out all of the factors on a sheet of paper, does not prove that the planet behaves that way, especially when, in that paper proof, you are functioning in a manner that ignores completely the fact that the mass is full, of mass, not some hollow, partially empty shell, that you have drawn, on a sheet of paper.

BTW, I can, by God's Grace, imagine lots of things, that does not make them real, just imagined. This is supposed to be a discourse on the reality of it, not the imagined of it.

Yeah. So when do you srart digging that hole! We are just waiting for you to come up with some proof!

Btw. What is this G = 0 thing???? G is the gravity constant, which is never and nowhere zero. Perhaps you mean g, the gravitational acceleration?

Mass is full of mass.... hmmmmmmm Well that explain what mass is, isn't it?

It refers to what you are also. You are full of yourself!

[heusdens]

Mr Parson, please go on with your weird and revolutionary ideas.
It realy is ammusing to all of us. Such fun!

Perhaps instead of criticizing mathematics and physics ideas, better try and learn to understand them!

[yogi]

The formulation derived by Nigel is idential to Friedmann's equation except for a factor of 2 - this does not prove that gravity is caused by expansion - it is a relationship between the deceleration of the universe due to the retarding effect of the totality of cosmic matter. Friedman's equation for critical density
[rho = 3H^2/8pi(G)] is the same. I would agree however that gravity is a consequence of expansion - I derived an identical formulation about 10 years ago based upon expansion. This was published on the net for some time under the name "Cosmodynamics"

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Nigel
With the fabric of space, exactly the same thing is produced by the big bang: the fabric of space presses towards us because the clusters of galaxies are accelerating away (with a speed proportional to their observed distance). This pressure causes gravity as I prove, getting the law plus a formula to calculate the constant G which was never done before. My argument is that having got this formula, the problem is solved.



There is something wrong with this explenation. The Big Bang was not like a material explosion (matter speeding away from a precise location at varying speeds) in pre-existing space. Actually the Big Bang is the expansion of spacetime itself.

Originally posted by Nigel
Proof of the cause of gravity as the effect of the Hubble expansion on the fabric of space. The outward motion of matter is balanced by inward directed fabric of space, maintaining a full volume, just as air moves into a suitcase when you take clothes out of it. The pressure towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by the shielding of the planet earth below us.



The Hubble expansion is caused by gravity. How can there be Hubble expansion without gravity?
Now if what you say is true, then while gravity still causes Hubble expansion, now the Hubble expansion causes gravity.

Your argumentation is fully circular. So, I don't expect that you found the cause of gravity, you only found a different way of expressing how this force works.

[yogi]

Huesdens - it isn't really necessary to involve the early universe in the mathematics of Nigel - simply consider the present state of the universe as a spherically symmetrical expansion - take the volume and differentiate twice - this gives you the volumetric acceleration (8piRc^2) - then make a volume to surface transformation using the divergence theorem (this simplifies to dividing by 4piR^2 for a sphere) - so the effective isotropic acceleration is 2c^2/R - from here you can get to Nigels result. Note that Nigels formulation predicts that G varies with time - When I first arrived at this result some years ago it bothered me because the experiments show G to be constant - but the problem is that all the experiments are measuring the MG product - not G alone - that is they measure orbital consistency of satellites over a period of years.

[heusdens]

yogi -- I hope you see the point of my argument... The theory of Nigel is based on the Hubble expansion. The theory states that this expansion can explain the cause of gravity. However, the Hubble expansion itself is an effect of gravity. So, we have gravity, causing Hubble expansion, and Hubble expansion then causes gravity.
How can something be it's own cause?

[yogi]

Agreed heusdens - you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps - I think the fallacy is in the assumption that gravity is the cause of expansion - if you use the zero energy (null) model of the universe first advanced by Ed Tyrol some years ago, expansion can be thought of in terms of the dynamic necessary to balance the negative potential energy with Kinetic energy - in which case the universe must have critical density. Accordingly, if expansion is a consequence of energy considerations - then the assumption re gravitational cause is erroneous. In the equations of Freidmann gravity comes in as a retarding influence - not a source of expansion. Given this caveat, the equations relating the cause of gravity to expansion make a lot of sense - recall the units of G (Vol acceleration per unit mass). I would disagree with the pressure analogy however - and the shielding idea of matter - it is much more logical to simply consider gravity as opposite side of the F=ma coin - in the case of a mass accelerated with respect to space - we get an inertial force - in the case of space accelerated relative to a mass - we also get an inertial force - but since the acceleration of space is so small, we need a lot of mass to get much of an effect. This also explains why gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical (Einstein's equivalence) and it comports with Einsteins postulate that we would get the same force effect if the universe were accelerated with respect to a hunk of matter as we would get if the matter were accelerated relative to the universe

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

03/06/2003

So heusdens, and Brad_AD23, just checked a reference source and found a reference to the fact of the outer (liquid) cores convection of heat by "material transportation", simple words, the outer molten core of the planet convects heat towards the mantle shell, above it, because, hotter, therefore lighter, materials rises towards the mantle.

It would also follow that heavier/ denser, cooler, materials, fall back towards the inner, solid core, and this evidence is in complete contradiction to the "theoretic" that you have attempted to defend.

If the gravitational acceleration was cancelled, as you seem to wish to tell me it is, then the site of the highest gravitational attraction, is the mantle to inner core boundary layer.

If your postulate was in fact correct, then the heavier materials would flow upwards from the inner core/outer core regions, towards the mantle, and the lighter, therefore less gravitationally acted upon, materials, would flow downwards, towards the site of lesser gravitational attraction, towards the inner core.

This is NOT what the physical evidence tells us is happening. The PHYSICAL EVIDENCE tells us that the hotter/lighter materials travel up towards the mantle, and the heavier/cooler materials flow down towards the inner core.


So the reason why I keep at this, in this manner, is simple enough, the reasoning that you have been trying to convince me, is working, in the earth, goes like this, mathematically.

Your first statement is that all of the mass of the earth contributes to the resultant measure of the G force at the surface........mathematically you are doing this........

Eq # 1 (2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2) = 20

Then you want to tell me that you have self cancellation, within the Earth itself...which is this math

Eq # 2 (2 + 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2) = 20

Please note, the result of the second line is, according to your statements, still 20! as you would wish me to follow (somehow) that you can 'self cancel' a vast amount of the mass's contribution to the energy that is seen as gravitational attraction, and still have the same resultant measurement of the force of attraction that is the 'Earth Normal' G force.

That is a sophist's fallacy!

Heusdens, it surprises me not that you would recommend that I return to preschool, as apparently, you being the evidence of a 'recent graduate' of such an institution, demonstrate clearly the need for someone to go there and explain to the people, who taught you, that mathematics simply does not work that way .

So the choice is clear enough, either it is the Eq. # 1, Or the Eq # 2 (if you think it's both, well, see the statement emboldened just above)

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe)

That one is clearly my choice, and I would add that the method of measurement of the Force of gravitational attraction going in would be 1/ square root of r

If it is # 2, then, there is/are several problems, one being the fact that the amount of mass that is generating the surface measure of the acceleration due to G, is way off, and the amount of mass that the planet contains, needs be way higher then what is currently "known".

And, that problem includes the problems of the density, as now you need to compress an enormous amount of mass, into a smaller space, to effect that "G" reading.

Further to that problem, in the convection problem, stated at the outset of this piece.

Further to that problem, comes this problem, the depth v pressure readings that do NOT concord with the facts of the gravitational attraction.

It cannot be both statements eq #1 and eq # 2, not a chance!

In a graphic of the pressure v gravity that I have been looking at, the (acceleration due to) gravity actually increases, from Earth 'Normal', to ~11 m per s-2, at a depth of ~1800 mi/3000 km, then, (apparently) drops off to "zero" as it goes towards the center.

But the pressure does a relatively steady climb, all the way down, continuing to climb, past the above indicated depth,without any method of pressurization.

Case you haven't grasped it yet, matter/mass is compressible, by gravitational activity, as is very clearly demonstrated by large, Stellar objects, and by Black Holes.

How you develop that kind of pressure, 3 to 4 mbars, without any method of pressurization, (as in your scenario, gravity has stopped accelerating everything/anything) is simply beyond me, and beyond you too, (I suspect) just that, I sincerely doubt that you will admit to that.

So, it is nice, (I suppose) that you tell me that I can lead a revolution in Science, just that, unbeknownst to you, that has been going on, for some time now, so I never needed, nor sought, you permission, for that endeavor. (Clearly, you were "out of the loop", and, God willing, will remain so!)

As for the rest, well, clearly, your "pressed" postulate has enough holes in it, to drive a truck through it, (I would know, I used to do that, drive trucks, big ones!) so I would respectfully suggest that you return to your vector map, and realize that, just because you can cancel out the two "equal and opposite vectors" that arise from two cars driving towards each other, at equal speeds and opposing directions, does not mean that they will not crash together with zero force.

(And please, don't go out and test that, cause the thing that probably gets "zeroed" in that scene, is the driver!)


PS If you would bother to do the calculation, you would find that, if you employ 1/square root of r as the manner of measure of Gravitational acceleration towards the center, you will find that the increasing gravitational activity, matches the pressure gradient, quite well!

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons you STILL don't get it. What we say accords exactly with stuff falling. We ARE NOT saying gravity simply vanishes. We are saying that the vectors for gravitational force cancel out exactly at the earth's center of gravity. There is a world of difference between saying "gravity ceases to exist and gravitational vectors cancel out."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Mr. Parsons you STILL don't get it. What we say accords exactly with stuff falling. We ARE NOT saying gravity simply vanishes. We are saying that the vectors for gravitational force cancel out exactly at the earth's center of gravity. There is a world of difference between saying "gravity ceases to exist and gravitational vectors cancel out."

In several of the postings herein you have adamantly and repetitively told me that the gravity at the center is zero, aside from that, I already know that you are simply following current theory, as the site I spoke of, has the exact same thing, in it's graph of pressure v gravity.

Between the two of you, it is like having a "dog on my leg", not even cognizant enough to know that it's the wrong species!

What you have stated does NOT accord with suff falling, as clearly the gravity is higher, according to what you have both been shoving on me, above the center, Hence it could do nothing but "fall up", and it doesn't!

Point closed, end of any further use of my leg! (get it?)

PS. current theory is wrong, big deal, live with it, cause all it really changes is your minds, nothing else! (Oh and BTW, just read a really good article on gravitational collapse, neutron stars, black holes, etc, and they all would not function that way if the gravity fell to zero at the center of the masses there. Heck the pegged a neutron stars density a 10E14 to 10E15 times the density of water, in a 6 mi (10 k) radius, you think something like that has a gravitational force that drops off to zero in it's center, WOW, it's the gravity that is doing the pressurization!! nothing else could! Oh yes, another BTW, WHEN I TYPE IN CAPS IT IS FOR EMPHASIS ONLY, I HAVE NO NEED TO SCREAM AT ANYONE, BUT WHEN YOU DO IT, WELL, I AM PROBABLY GRATEFUL, AS I NO LONGER NEED MY GLASSES TO READ YOU, SOMETHING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN MIND, A JEDI 'TRICK', (no doubt) TEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-hee-hee-hee-he, as I had overheard, Jedi Jokster!)





BYE!!

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Maybe this has already been answered.


Mr Parsons, consider an empty chamber in the center of the earth and at time 0 an apple is suspended in the exact center. Now according to you, there is still gravity, so my question is, does the apple fall towards China or America?

[Brad_Ad23]

I guess that's why it takes a physicist to realize that zero need not imply the absence of something. Then again, I suppose having an inflated ego enough to think you are more correct than many centuries worth of people who have studied many years and know the subject intimately. Good for you.

[yogi]

All experiments and all textbooks confirm that the gravitational field E falls off inversely with radius inside a homogeneous spherical mass, that is since E = GM/r^2 and since
M = (rho)V then E = G(rho)[4/3]pi(r^3)/r^2
therefore E = (4/3)(rho)(pi)r

What has all this got to do with the parent subject - namely the proposition that G is determined by expansion. I would comment also that the criticism of the theory based upon GR is unfounded - the derivation is for the coefficient G that appears in both the Newtonian and Einsteinian formulations - neither man could come up with an explanation of why G has the value it does. This should be the focus of the inquiry -

[heusdens]

I agree with the previous post, this whole discussion with Mr Parson, is off-topic, and not relevant to the issue of this thread, which is about the cause of gravity.

We should probably dedicate a whole new forum to the issues mentioned by Mr Parson. It would be the "educate Mr Parson" thread, cause from his posts it is clear, he hasn't the slightest understanding of the subject matter.

He keeps talking about G (gravity constant), while the issue at hand is gravity acceleration, and nothing else.

And he keeps thinking, that matter would accelerate at the center of gravity in the direction of the surface, while this is a simple impossibility (it can't spread out in all directions simultaniously).
If there is no nett force of gravity at the center, it means no acceleration, and not acceleration in the opposite direction.
Things fall "down", cause by definition down is the direction towards the center of gravity.

[heusdens]

Mr. Parson -- What happens if you put two exactly equal trucks front-to-front, with their bumpers touching each other, and both trucks would have their engines excert an equal force.
Well the fact is that besides a lot of noise, the slipping of the wheels, etc, nothing happens, that is, the two trucks won't move an inch (provided the forces exactly balance).

So, my notion of all this is: see, there is no NETT ACCELERATION, but there are forces, which exactly balance at that point.

[heisenberg]

General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas1.

Einstein put the terms in the field equations, but later retracted them, under pressure from the hubble red-shift discoveries! (His greatest blunder) [:(]

[yogi]

heisenberg - i would not bet on the fact that GR failed to predict the corret recession speeds - as interpreted by distant 1a supernova - there are other explanations for the apparent dimming that is taken to be evidence of accceleration - things might have been different when the universe was younger - the factors that determine when the supernova event occurs are complicated - and any one of them could conceivable lead to different dynamic conditions - for example, the very essense of this thread concerns whether G is constant - according to the expansion theory of gravity, G must be a variable if the expansion rate is always c - so if G were greater in the past, the supernova event might well be triggered with less mass and hence the apparent brightness would be less (not due to a greater distance but to a smaller mass than what is required for a contemporary supernova).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Mr. Parson -- What happens if you put two exactly equal trucks front-to-front, with their bumpers touching each other, and both trucks would have their engines excert an equal force.
Well the fact is that besides a lot of noise, the slipping of the wheels, etc, nothing happens, that is, the two trucks won't move an inch (provided the forces exactly balance).

So, my notion of all this is: see, there is no NETT ACCELERATION, but there are forces, which exactly balance at that point.

Your notion is what I have been telling is the answer, lots of force at the center, but that force arises from the accelerative nature of gravitational force, as it is not zero at the center, and it does NOT drop off as you approach the center, as it is gravity that provides/makes the pressure that is found there.

Originally posted by Heusdens

And he keeps thinking, that matter would accelerate at the center of gravity in the direction of the surface, while this is a simple impossibility (it can't spread out in all directions simultaniously).
If there is no nett force of gravity at the center, it means no acceleration, and not acceleration in the opposite direction.

So once again, (according to you) an object that is gravitational, will NOT move towards the spot where gravitational acceleration is greatest, somehow it will resist this motion, and without any forces acting upon it.

Sorry, don't buy that!

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak

Mr Parsons, consider an empty chamber in the center of the earth and at time 0 an apple is suspended in the exact center. Now according to you, there is still gravity, so my question is, does the apple fall towards China or America?

Firstly, I see that you too see that it must Fall up, aside from that, it would fall in the direction of whatever imperfection in the non absolute sphericallity, that it has, that causes the slight influence that will begin it's acceleration towards the greater gravitational pull, either from it's own gravity, or from the greater gravitational attraction, that is above it, proven by the greater gravitational acceleration that can be measured there, according to these two other guys, NOT according to me.

But it answers your question, as anyone with "The Proof of the cause of Gravity" should be able to answer this entire issue, without question.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

6/5/2003

So in the example given by Heusdens of the two trucks in opposition, what I am attempting to explain to you, jargon aside, is that the force which is the gravitational force, (which arises from the acceleration due to gravity) is still operating at the center of the planet.

This is proven by the very simply observation of the pressure that IS there, as it is also very obvious from Heusdens example of the two trucks, as they are exerting pressure at their interface.

That the acceleration due to gravity is not observed (observable) does not mean that there is NO gravitational force at work, there is, same as it is very clear that the two truck are exerting force against each other. The resultant vector of acceleration is zero, but the vector of force is not cancelled, it is what generates the pressurization that the two truck are creating between them.

The idea that energy generates force is clear enough from the flashlight upon a scale, it gives a reading, therefore we know that it is able to generate a force, that is the same thing that gravity is doing at the center of the planet, generating a force, not an acceleration, and the force at that level is measurable as the pressurization of the matter.

Gravity is what is pressurizing the mass, all the way through to the center of the planet!

Measurable as 1/&radic;r (Actually Gm/&radic;r)

EDIT Sq rt of changed to &radic;

[heusdens]

We never had a disagreement about pressure inside earth, and the fact that gravity works down there as well.

The only dispute was wethere there is a NETT RESULTANT force of gravity, a nonzero gravity acceleration right at the center of gravity of earth.

That is what you argued against.

Do you accept my proof now?

Nett force of gravity, resultant acceleration due to gravity at the center of eart, is zero, at the center of gravity.

End of discussion.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No, there is still force being applied by gravity, it is what is causeing the pressure that is there.

No 'acceleration', meaning 'no motion/movement', but the "accelerating energy" (generating a force) is still very active there, it is what is generating the pressure.

To that, I will agree.

PS Heusdens, please stop quoting my entire posts, uselessly/needlessly, that is a waste of server space Thanks, in advance!

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
No, there is still force being applied by gravity, it is what is causeing the pressure that is there.

No 'acceleration', meaning 'no motion/movement', but the "accelerating energy" (generating a force) is still very active there, it is what is generating the pressure.

To that, I will agree.

PS Heusdens, please stop quoting my entire posts, uselessly/needlessly, that is a waste of server space Thanks, in advance!

f = ma

No net acceleration means no net force. Gravity or otherwise.

[heusdens]

So, we agree there is no nett accelartion, so no nett force.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak

No net acceleration means no net force. Gravity or otherwise.

So according to you, in Heusdens example of the two trucks 'facing off', since there is no acceleration, you see it as a situation with "no forces" at work, at all.

Clearly I disagree.

Aren't you missing the fact that the 'force(s)' are in opposition and are, therefore, generating a pressurization/pressure. (respective of the balance held)

Tell me something simpler Heusdens, have you ever bothered to examine any other alternatives to the theory you already know, listened to an explaination, in full, of why there is a more appropriate/apt description of the "event(s)", that satifies all of the required needs of the observed activities?

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons, yes it does generate a pressure. Remember, pressure is force over area. Since there is a quantity of force in there, there must be pressure, we agree. But that is irrelevant since the pressure does absolutely nothing to alter the system. The two forces still cancel out and there is no net acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law of motion and you may be better able to see why the pressure does not matter.

[heusdens]

Mr. parson, have you realy tried to understand physcics?

[r637h]

"If a fool be silent..."

Is gravity at the "exact" center of a body net=0?

Well, I believe gravity refers to the "whole ball of wax", as it were.
The center of a body is simply a convenient point of reference, especially when it defines the relationship to an (interacting?) body.

I suppose the argument is whether it's calculable. It may be, theoretically, but it's not observable, or measureable. The measuring device could not function independantly of that being measured (the old canard), even for Classical Physics.

Mez Pas?

[heusdens]

There are supposedly convections streams down there.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Parsons, yes it does generate a pressure. Remember, pressure is force over area. Since there is a quantity of force in there, there must be pressure, we agree. But that is irrelevant since the pressure does absolutely nothing to alter the system. The two forces still cancel out and there is no net acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law of motion and you may be better able to see why the pressure does not matter.


So Brad_AD23 you think the pressure is "irrelevant"

From the 'subscription' site "Access Science", Mc Graw-Hill.

"High-pressure physics is concerned with the effects of high pressure on the properties of matter. Since most properties of matter are modified by pressure, the field of high-pressure physics encompasses virtually all branches of physics."

"The major effects of high pressure on matter include diminution of volume, phase transitions, changes in electrical, optical, magnetic, and chemical properties, increases in viscosity of liquids, and increases in the strength of most solids."

Authors; R. K. Linde P. S. DeCarli

Copyright ©2000, 2001, 2002 The McGraw-Hill Companies.

You should answer the question of your "twin:" here, Heusdens question....

Originally posted by Heusdens

have you realy tried to understand physcics?


As for you r637h, whomever you are, the Bible counsels not to go looking for fools, good counsel, you should follow it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut, as be 'thought' of as a fool, then to open your mouth, and prove it!"

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
There are supposedly convections streams down there.

BTW heusdens, on/in the site, that I have cited work from above, the gravity v pressure graph put the acceleration due to G at ~11 or 12 m/sec-2, at around the boundary of the mantle, and the outer liquid core.

That figure indicates that if a heavier object were towards the center, acceleration due to G < ~11 or 12 m/sec-2 (WAY less then, more like 1 or 2 m/sec-2) then the heavier object should, according to the principles of (sound/solid) physics, migrate towards the Higher gravitational accleration, which means heavier/denser objects should be floating Upwards, as the acceleration due to gravity up there is much higher then down there.

Therefore, so should the thermal plumes, flows of heated matter should be flowing down for the hotter lighter, less dense materials, and up for the heavier cooler denser materials.

Opposite to the manner in which it is known to occur!

But that is only according to your insistance, here, in this thread.

[Brad_Ad23]

Notice, I said the pressure was irrelevent to the SYSTEM. Much different than saying pressure is irrelevant. Why? Because I said it was irrelevant to the system being described. Key word: system. Of course, I suppose you just didn't catch that, did you?

[r637h]

Whoever I am, I did not intend the quote to apply to anyone in particular, and certainly not as a criticism

The literal quote is in Proverbs 17:28.

Beg pardon for intruding. "...and the rest is Silence."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Notice, I said the pressure was irrelevent to the SYSTEM. Much different than saying pressure is irrelevant. Why? Because I said it was irrelevant to the system being described. Key word: system. Of course, I suppose you just didn't catch that, did you?

Notice in the manner in which I had quoted you, the word 'system' is there, as in "Yes", I had noticed, and Yes, it is relevant, just that, apparently, you don't think so, That Proves nothing.

Sorry r637h, had mis-read it I guess.

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons, first of all, the system I am referring to is the truck example, not the earth one (since that follows from the truck idea). Second of all, the website notes that it is HIGH pressure. The pressure generated by the two trucks is hardly high enough to alter properties of matter, lest the trucks start acting very strangely.

Now, notice the earth is high pressure, and nowhere do we say pressure is irrelevant. Indeed, the balance the pressure has by representing a force directed outwards to counter gravity is quite important. I also find it rather odd that you go to all these sites, one would think that somewhere you would encounter some argument you could comprehend as to why the rest of us are right. But again, I reiterate, since you are so convinced you are correct, I look forward to reading about your works someday.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

And Brad_AD23 in the posting right above mine, Heusdens, the person I was originally addressing, stated...........

Origianlly posted by Heusdens

So, we agree there is no nett accelartion, so no nett force.

So please, follow what is being talked about, or please, stop talking.

Thanks.

[Brad_Ad23]

But you also were referring to the truck example as well.

At any rate, the mechanics, and this may surprise you, work the exact same way regardless of the location.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But you also were referring to the truck example as well.

At any rate, the mechanics, and this may surprise you, work the exact same way regardless of the location.

Ahem, no I wasn't, and why would the "Mechanics of it" surprise me?

The point that I was making with Heusdens was concerning the measure of gravitational 'force' being excerted at the center.

He said "No Acceleration, no Force", I said "No acceleration, but still Force" which is where the pressure results from.

You seem to think that somehow the Earth's shell is pressurizing it's center, which would indicate that a Neutron Star's contraction would spew matter, out into the universe with tremendous force, as it would somehow be this "shell structure" you two keep inferring gravity makes, snapping into pieces as it attempted to contract, because in your world it DOES NOT contract from the center, it contracts from a shell ~4/5ths of the way down from it's surface.....same as the earth's.

That is 'patently' WRONG!

EDIT a comma, like that one, there, behind , here (yuk yuk)

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok, here is some math to back this up also:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/hydrostat.html

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/mathphys/java/sect5/subsubsection5_1_1_2.html



Also to note, it is nuclear fission (radioactive decay) that heats up the earth primarily, not pressure.

And, to note also, no matter what, the sum of the gravitational forces at the center is zero. But as we have been trying to say, this does not mean that nothing is happening. Zero net force is not the same as absence of force. A simple analogy:

Take the earth and divide it into two equal parts. Seperate it some distance and put yourself at the center between the two hemispheres. Since the gravitational attraction cancels out, you won't move. BUT, stay there for a few minutes and the two hemisphere will come together and crush you with a pressure proportional to the force of attraction between them and your surface area. Does that perhaps better clairify how no net force can still exist in the presence of pressure?

also: I am not quite sure where you get a 4/5th from nor this shell pressurization. And as for the truck stuff, perhaps a contextual misread. At any rate, the above situation dealing with the force of gravity and pressure is physics. A simple bit of research will show that.

[r637h]

There's no way to be totally silent: It's against human nature.

I only want to say (for now) that I find the dialog (multilog?)
in this thread absolutely fascinating. Mirable dictu! I think I'm actually learning something.

Best regards to All.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Also to note, it is nuclear fission (radioactive decay) that heats up the earth primarily, not pressure.

And, to note also, no matter what, the sum of the gravitational forces at the center is zero. But as we have been trying to say, this does not mean that nothing is happening. Zero net force is not the same as absence of force. A simple analogy:

Take the earth and divide it into two equal parts. Seperate it some distance and put yourself at the center between the two hemispheres. Since the gravitational attraction cancels out, you won't move. BUT, stay there for a few minutes and the two hemisphere will come together and crush you with a pressure proportional to the force of attraction between them and your surface area. Does that perhaps better clairify how no net force can still exist in the presence of pressure?

also: I am not quite sure where you get a 4/5th from nor this shell pressurization. And as for the truck stuff, perhaps a contextual misread. At any rate, the above situation dealing with the force of gravity and pressure is physics. A simple bit of research will show that.

According to your source for the pressure, they 'average out' the density, hence it is not looking for from where the pressure is generated, nor does it give a result in concordance with what I have/had, the Access Science site's graph told me between 3, and 4 Megabars of pressure at the center.

Your is 1.7x10E6 atmospheres, which, when I convert from Megabars to atmospheres, I get @ 3 megabar = 2,960,769.5079428 atmosphere [standard] and @ 4 megabar = 3,947,692.6772571 atmosphere [standard], so I would respectfully suggest that your site is simplfieing the math just a little bit much.

The part of your post that I have emboldened is self-contradicting as you first tell me the gravitational attractions cancel, then, that they will crush me.

Your problem is a simply one you keep treating gravity as if it can be dealt with as a 'discrete' force, "pieces and parts" of what acutally acts in a wholistic manner.

Where do you see that pressure coming from?, arising from?

The "4/5ths" was explained, in one of my posts, some pages back.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem, no I wasn't, and why would the "Mechanics of it" surprise me?

The point that I was making with Heusdens was concerning the measure of gravitational 'force' being excerted at the center.

He said "No Acceleration, no Force", I said "No acceleration, but still Force" which is where the pressure results from.

You seem to think that somehow the Earth's shell is pressurizing it's center, which would indicate that a Neutron Star's contraction would spew matter, out into the universe with tremendous force, as it would somehow be this "shell structure" you two keep inferring gravity makes, snapping into pieces as it attempted to contract, because in your world it DOES NOT contract from the center, it contracts from a shell ~4/5ths of the way down from it's surface.....same as the earth's.

That is 'patently' WRONG!

EDIT a comma, like that one, there, behind , here (yuk yuk)

Yes Mr Parson. And you have an ABSOLUTE TALENT for not understanding what someone else is telling you.

The discussion was not about wether or not there is the force of gravity at the center, but wehter there is a NETT RESULTANT FORCE.
And there isn't since all forces balance there, and hence no gravitational acceleration.

Else I didn't claim, and especially this pressure thing, I never claimed there not be a lot of pressure there.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

2003-06-08

Lets try it this way Guys, F = ma, so, when I hold a golf ball in my hand, balanced forces, no acceleration, I "drop the ball" (so to speak) and gravity continues to act upon the mass that was previously in a 'balanced holding', by accelerating it towards, and into, the ground.

Gravity continues to act, holding the ball securely to the face of the planet.

From that we can deduce that, the acceleration has ceased, but gravity is still excerting a force as to hold the ball to the face of the planet. We can measure that force, easily, by simply inserting a scale between the interface of contact, and we now see that the energy of gravity, being opposed by a greater resistance, generates a pressure we call "Mass".

Gravity is still working, it has never stopped, not since the formation of the planet, it is inceassent, it is continous, and persistant, throughout time.

So in the equation F = ma, we need a repair, in our thinking, actually, because when gravity acts to hold a piece of mass/matter to it's gravitational face, we can easily surmise the action of a force, even though we see no acceleration, we still know that the effort/attempt of/to accelerate, exerts force called pressure, or weight/mass, so we need to see that in the Equation the acceleration value can only be seen as a 1 (one). (with NO qualifiers like m/sec2)


The reasoning is simply that, now we see that F = m(1), or F = mass, because we know that the fact of "mass" is as a result of gravities attempt at accelerating something, in a place where the opposition to that acceleration, is greater then the force applied, and we weigh that 'force', on a scale, and call it pressure, from a mass.

The force is the weight, the weight is a measure of a force, the force that is being measured is still gravity, just that like the two trucks at opposition, there is an attampt at acceleration, that generates a pressure, measurable with a scale, as either a pressure, or a mass, although we wouldn't normally recognize a reading "that way" as a [b]mass[b], it is, effectively, the same thing.

(because you need "mass", to make pressure)

So we now see that gravity is a pressurizing force, a wave of energy that attempts to accelerate mass that is oppositionally resistive to that attempt at acceleration, the result of which is pressure(ization, of mass)

Try that one.............

[FZ+]

Mr Parsons: But F = ma (or more accurately F d/dt(mv)) is applied only on the resultant force on the object. In the case of the object, there is not resultant force because the sum of the force of gravity "down" and the electromagnetic reaction force up is zero. It's not opposed by greater resistance, because then we would have an acceleration upwards.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
Mr Parsons: But F = ma (or more accurately F d/dt(mv)) is applied only on the resultant force on the object. In the case of the object, there is not resultant force because the sum of the force of gravity "down" and the electromagnetic reaction force up is zero. It's not opposed by greater resistance, because then we would have an acceleration upwards.

Static resistance, the sum of the forces is not zero, the measurable force is the weight of the mass, hence it's ability to excert pressure, as it so clearly does, like a six ton rock.

EDIT ...Like a six ton Rock, which, BTW, weighs in at one ton, on the Moon, because the Gravitationally attempted acceleration excerts 1/6th (less) the force, upon the rock.

[FZ+]

No sir. When you are weighing, you are in fact weighing the difference in the two force vectors by their effect on both ends in compressing the scales. When you weigh the person, you are simultaneously weighing the planet in terms of the person's gravitational field.

[Brad_Ad23]

The Net (please for the love of physics learn what the word net means when applied to force!) force cancels out..ie. it is zero. This does not by any stretch of any good imagination mean gravity is not present. As has been stated numerous times by everyone but you, zero net force/acceleration can and does exist when two even forces balance out, but the two forces still exert a pressure, in the form of an equal but opposite reaction. Hence you are squished, but you don't move from one side to another.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
No sir. When you are weighing, you are in fact weighing the difference in the two force vectors by their effect on both ends in compressing the scales. When you weigh the person, you are simultaneously weighing the planet in terms of the person's gravitational field.

Ahem, you are 'weighing' the planet's gravitational attraction, as it acts upon the person.

If you remove the weight from the face of the planet, the planet does NOT come flying out at you, (a slight decompression may happen) as it affords no vector of "force", it affords a vector of resistance to force.

Brad_AD23, the 'zero net force' you would wish me to believe in, is wrong, simply on the fact of the energy, that is gravity, is still acting upon the matter, that is what is compressing it. Nothing else can.

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

As has been stated numerous times by everyone but you, zero net force/acceleration can and does exist when two even forces balance out, but the two forces still exert a pressure, in the form of an equal but opposite reaction. Hence you are squished, but you don't move from one side to another.

Not from what you and heusdens have been stating on these pages, as you keep trying to tell me that the center is at zero, less gravity there, according to BOTH of you, then above it, and the simplicity is that it is the Force, of the acceleration, due to the passage of gravitational energy, waveform, that is causing the compression of matter at that center.

Hence that waveform, energy, that is gravity, must still be acting right down to the center. Otherwise NO COMPRESSION.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So Brad to recap yours and Heusdens arguements, "a brief history of time" (Sorry Stephan Hawking)
Originally posted by Heusdens pg 17

Right at that point, we imagine to have a whole bunch of vectors, in different directions and different magnitudes. Now the application of some math allow you to pick pairs of vectors with same magnitue and opposing directions, which sum to a resultant vector of zero magnitude, and the "proof" includes that this can be done in such a way that all the vectors can be removed. Resulting in this zero gravity force at the center.

and from page 16...

I don't have a massive pressure problem. I already explained what caused the pressure. It's because all the mass that DOES have weight ABOVE the center of gravity, that is pushing there.

There is absolutely no problem with that.

and from page 15...

It can be proven very easily however that right at the center, all forces of gravity of all the mass of earth, cancel out.
Now take any part of the earth mass, and calculate this mass and it's distance to the center of gravity. That will enable you to calculate the force of gravity from that part of earth's mass. Which is not zero. But at the exact opposite direction, we will find an equal mass at equal distance. This follows the fact that the density of earth at any specific depth is more or less the same, and the earth is a round spherical object. So we can deconstruct all of earth's mass into small parts (as small as you want) and calculate the force of gravity from all parts. Since we always can find for every force vector an equal and exactly opposite directed force vector, this means that the resulting force of gravity exactly results in a force of zero.

And you Brad_Ad23

Originally posted by Brad_AD23 pg 14

Ok Parsons, listen up carefully. The gravitational force is directed downwards. To the center of gravity. At this point, the center of gravity, this is where all the little vectors of force meet up. At this point, there is no attraction, since there is no distance to go to get to the center of gravity. But, what else is going on? Hmm, well we have all this weight above the point. Yeah, that is directed downward as well. But what else is going on? We have pressure. Yep, Force divided by area. What else? As you go down deeper, you get more pressure, because there is more weight above you. Check. So anything else? Well, it would appear that if gravity's strength decreases, should there not be less pressure? Nope. The pressure exerted on any region down there, is a result of the weight above it. Not due to the gravitational force at that depth. It is also balanced as per the 3rd law of motion--An equal, but opposite, reaction for every action. The pressure from above pushes down, and the matter being acted upon pushes back with equal force.

So if you would like to change your stories, again, please, do so, you'll only make yourselves look, well, you know "that word" don't you!

(More so then you already are??)

[Brad_Ad23]

But why would I change my story when it is true? As you go down deeper you feel less and less gravity acting on you. The resultant gravity force does indeed become weaker. However, as you do down you also have more mass above you. The more mass above you, the more force it contributes in the opposite direction as that below you, the resultant force thus becomes weaker. The effect this has, is the same as the analogy with the planets crushing you. You have the combined forces acting in two opposite directions. The resultant force vector is zero, however the resultant pressure is not. Why? Because of the laws of motion, and mechanics. You have an equal amount of gravity itself acting around both sides, and an enourmous weight all around. All this mass is trying to pull itself together (since that is what gravity does...it causes stuff to contract). But, at the center, it is equally distributed in all directions. The resultant is no gravity vector. You are correct when saying the gravity energy is still there, yes, it does not go away. However when I have a force of 5 Newtons acting on something from the left, from the right, and from up and down, that particle will not move. What it will feel however, is the resultant force per unit area that the vectors exert on it, also known as pressure. So even though the forces cancel out to the same, the pressure is still there. And remember, pressure from all directions will be equal as well (equal depths same pressure when in equillibrium, which at the center there is).

However, that you say energy compresses matter, that is rather disconcerting to know. Energy in of itself cannot exert a force. Energy may be imparted into something, which MAY cause it to exert a stronger, or weaker force.

And FZ+ is indeed correct. You are measurign the planet's weight in terms of your gravitational field.

Take: F=dp/dt and F = GMm/r2.

Let m be the mass of the person and M the mass of the planet. dp/dt is the change in momentum per time interval (you also see this as F=ma, [mdv/dt = dp/dt, and dv/dt = a]). The mutual force of attraction between the two is F = GMm/r2.

Now, let us get the acceleration due to gravity of the earth. This case we would be looking for the weight of the person.

ma = GMm/r2. small m's go away, and we get:

a = GM/r2. The resulting a we get should be roughly 9.8 meters per square second. Plug this into the F = ma equation and we get the weight of the person in earth's gravity field. But, remember, for every actions there is an equal but opposite reaction. In this case, the changes in momentum must be equal obviously. But one has a large Mass and the other has a small mass. For the momentums to equal, the acceleration, a, ( remember, m dv/dt = dp/dt, and dv/dt = a) one body must have a smaller change in velocity than the other. That body is the earth. This means it is being acted upon by a tiny gravity field. And who's is that? Why the person's! Instead of canceling out the small m, cancel out the big one and find the acceleration. This is the weight of earth in your gravitational field, which as FZ+ pointed out, you are also weighing. To make this simpler refer to Newton's 3rd law. If you were not exerting equal magnitudes of force, then either A)you would fly into the earth, or B)the earth would fly into you.


Also, I add that resistence to force is not a vector. You can have a resistive force, or a force of resistance and that will be a vector, but a resistence in of itself to force is no vector.

[sol]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#isq

In order for me to see some consistancy here, it was necessary for me to see the logic and develpement of a model of apprehension, based on preceding work done.

Like understanding Euclid's psotulates and then finding his fifth had moved to a different realm. Girolma Saccheri leads us into further thinking.

The logic of this approach must be geometrical defined. Is the metric understood here? I am in need of some education, so if anyone can help, I might help you extend your own knowlegde (logically and geometrically).

Sol

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No time for the full responce here, not now, but I will, God willing, give you more of an answer, later, but for now, this simple point.....

Originally posted by Heusdens (Ooops my error BRAD_AD23)

And FZ+ is indeed correct. You are measurign the planet's weight in terms of your gravitational field.

So there was this guy, see, he went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, a fifty lb ball, and a five lb ball, and the gravitational attraction of the balls, on the planet's weight, wasn' t recordable/observable, and He iS FAMOUS for having done that!!

Know his name??....cause ya know something, HE PROVED BOTH OF YOU WRONG, waaaaaaaay back in HISTORY.........

Till later..........

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
No time for the full responce here, not now, but I will, God willing, give you more of an answer, later, but for now, this simple point.....



So there was this guy, see, he went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, a fifty lb ball, and a five lb ball, and the gravitational attraction of the balls, on the planet's weight, wasn' t recordable/observable, and He iS FAMOUS for having done that!!

Know his name??....cause ya know something, HE PROVED BOTH OF YOU WRONG, waaaaaaaay back in HISTORY.........

Till later..........

That experiment is a myth. He worked with pendulums and incline planes to realize that the specific weight of an object had no effect on its decent under the influence of gravity.

[Brad_Ad23]

Thank you, and Parsons, at least get the name of who you quote right.

All that would do is show the acceleration due to gravity is independent of one mass. I.E. case one of my math I included. The earth attracts all massive objects with the same acceleration, so everything falls to it at the same dv/dt. However, not everyone has the same mass so dp/dt, or force or weight will be different. That does absolutely nothing to alter my argument in any way shape or form. It is just a side result, which as you admit is correct, otherwise you would not have posted the result.

Just in case, my resulting equation:

Take: F=dp/dt and F = GMm/r2.

Let m be the mass of the person and M the mass of the planet. dp/dt is the change in momentum per time interval (you also see this as F=ma, [mdv/dt = dp/dt, and dv/dt = a]). The mutual force of attraction between the two is F = GMm/r2.

Now, let us get the acceleration due to gravity of the earth. This case we would be looking for the weight of the person.

ma = GMm/r2. small m's go away, and we get:

a = GM/r2.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
No time for the full responce here, not now, but I will, God willing, give you more of an answer, later, but for now, this simple point.....



So there was this guy, see, he went to the top of a tower and dropped two balls, a fifty lb ball, and a five lb ball, and the gravitational attraction of the balls, on the planet's weight, wasn' t recordable/observable, and He iS FAMOUS for having done that!!

Know his name??....cause ya know something, HE PROVED BOTH OF YOU WRONG, waaaaaaaay back in HISTORY.........

Till later..........
In fact there is a small difference due to the variation in the earth's acceleration towards the ball. However, as you can appreciate, the mass of the ball is many orders of magnitude below that of the earth and hence this effect is very small, often outweighed by air resistance etc, much less than any instruments by Galileo can detect.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
In fact there is a small difference due to the variation in the earth's acceleration towards the ball. However, as you can appreciate, the mass of the ball is many orders of magnitude below that of the earth and hence this effect is very small, often outweighed by air resistance etc, much less than any instruments by Galileo can detect.

I agree, it is so small because of the huge differentiation in the planet's weight, compared to the balls weights, the differential of acceleration is proportionate to the difference of the sum of the two weights, and F = ma will demonstrate that the time differential is miniscule.....Really miniscule...........No problemo....

Now, go to the page with the Lumpy Earth (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/features/watkins.html) link, take that shape and cut it in half, use the perimeters "appearance" for the application of all of your vectors, which means, use that shape for the inhomogenous, (totally?) anisotropic, realm of wave activity.

(Please take clear note, it is NOT a "nice little {perfect?} circle")

Let's see you cancel them out now.


Oh Yes, it is required that you have a magnitude for the force, (pressurizing force at this point) well the magnitude is the speed of propagation of EMR through it's medium, solid rock.

(Don't be fooled!, there is a minimium of 26% empty space in that 'apparent' solid)


Lumpy Earth photo, (JPEG) provided by the link to the People at NASA, Thanks!


EDIT Pssssst......this is a part of the answer to all of this riddle of gravity...
© 2003 Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Canada

¤Spark le and ¯Shine!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

2003-06-10

Want some other fun, try this one, the density of the surface rock on this planet is 3000 kg/m3, now, (anybody got a good supply of pre-nacent water, prefferably really really cold!) we will voyage to the Moon, with our Earth rock, and, upon landing there, we will weigh the rock, aaaaand Oh look!, the density has changed!!!, it is now 500 kg/m3!

Tell me, if, when I started out on the Earth, the atomic volume of the rock had been one Avogadro's number per cu mm (1 AN/mm3)* do you think that when I arrive on the Moon, and re-weigh the rock, that that property of the rock, (1 AN/mm3) has actually changed?


* I made up that figure, so it is just for the purpose of illustration, it is not to be seen as being the accurate one, I can (God's Grace) figure out the right one, but why bother, right now, as I only need the demonstrative ability.

[Brad_Ad23]

Let's see you cancel them out now.

At the center of gravity they will. I know for a fact in some earlier post of mine I said the center of gravity and the exact center of earth need not coincide.


2003-06-10

Want some other fun, try this one, the density of the surface rock on this planet is 3000 kg/m3, now, (anybody got a good supply of pre-nacent water, prefferably really really cold!) we will voyage to the Moon, with our Earth rock, and, upon landing there, we will weigh the rock, aaaaand Oh look!, the density has changed!!!, it is now 500 kg/m3!

Tell me, if, when I started out on the Earth, the atomic volume of the rock had been one Avogadro's number per cu mm (1 AN/mm3)* do you think that when I arrive on the Moon, and re-weigh the rock, that that property of the rock, (1 AN/mm3) has actually changed?


* I made up that figure, so it is just for the purpose of illustration, it is not to be seen as being the accurate one, I can (God's Grace) figure out the right one, but why bother, right now, as I only need the demonstrative ability.

What the heck did you do here? You divided the density by 6 I noticed, which coincides with the rough decrease of gravity on the moon. Please tell me you are not in fact, asserting that on the moon, objects would be 1/6 as dense as on earth? Kilograms are used as a measure of weight here, but that is a misnomer that people very readily do. The actual kilogram is a measure of the amount of mass an object contains. It is a scalar quantity, meaning, its constant. Weight, is what you get when you do mass times acceleration. It is measured in Newtons, or pounds, and as people do on scales, they factor out the a and it produces a "weight" in kilograms. On the moon, the object would still have 3000kg/m3. Its "weight" would indeed be 500 kg sure, but as stated, that is a misnomer. The true definition of mass in kilograms is scalar, and invarient no matter what gravity field. The density will remain the same as a result (mainly because density is MASS per unit volume, NOT weight per unit volume).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Apparently you cannot tell what one of these is, ?, for your EDIFICATION it is called a question mark, usually used when an individual is asking a question,

Oh look!! theres one now!! right there, in big bold red...

Originally posted by ME!

Tell me, if, when I started out on the Earth, the atomic volume of the rock had been one Avogadro's number per cu mm (1 AN/mm3)* do you think that when I arrive on the Moon, and re-weigh the rock, that that property of the rock, (1 AN/mm3) has actually changed?

Can you see it better now? (oh look there's another one of those "thingamajigggies" that he mentioned, what was that called again??)

PS

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

At the center of gravity they will. I know for a fact in some earlier post of mine I said the center of gravity and the exact center of earth need not coincide.

Lets keep the story straight here fellows, you keep telling me that Gravity is waning as we travel down, BY SELF CANCELATION, show me how you cancel those lines!

[Brad_Ad23]

You have one line pointing in one direction, and oddly enough, another pointing in the opposite. Hmmm, imagine that. It is not that hard of a concept to see for most people.

[heusdens]

Mr Parson.

You are an absolute genius Mr Parson, we humbly and sincerely apologize for being so wrong in this, while your brilliant mind was so right on this.

Of COURSE there is a nett force of gravity at the CENTER of gravity.
How stupid of us to assume there is not!


But.. perhaps because we are so stupid, may we still ask you a question.

If there is a nett force of gravity at the center of earth, and since a force is a vector, and we know through your brilliant mind it is not zero, all we want to know is: what is the DIRECTION of that resultant force??????

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23 pg 20

but the two forces still exert a pressure, in the form of an equal but opposite reaction.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Mr Parson.

You are an absolute genius Mr Parson, Well thank you we humbly and sincerely apologize for being so wrong in this, Thanks again! while your brilliant mind was so right on this. Now now, flattery will get you nowheres with me...

Of COURSE there is a nett force of gravity at the CENTER of gravity.
How stupid of us to assume there is not! Good of you to admit it, but I really don't think that your all that stupid


But.. perhaps because we are so stupid, may we still ask you a question. Oh of course, but as I said, your not really stupid, ya know?

If there is a nett force of gravity at the center of earth, and since a force is a vector, and we know through your brilliant mind it is not zero, all we want to know is: what is the DIRECTION of that resultant force?????? Well, now your just being silly, go back and re-read what I told you before last time you asked me this very same question. Cheese bud, don't you read what I post?? or are you just being your usual agrumentative self?

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally posted by Brad_AD23 pg 20

but the two forces still exert a pressure, in the form of an equal but opposite reaction.

Yes, your point? The force still has an effect even though the resultant vector of the gravity forces are zero at the point, the pressure that all the forces exert (which add up mind you, is still great because it is force divided by area. And no, it is not the resultant gravity force at the center of gravity over area. It is the sum of any of the force vectors in any direction being exerted. Yeah the pressure will be immense and come from all directions and balance out, but you still feel it squeezing you from all directions.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Thank you, and Parsons, at least get the name of who you quote right.

My apologies, "To err is human, to forgive Divine"

(although, I suspect, considering the un-relenting nature of this discourse, in your case(s) (I include Heusdens in this) "Canine")

But none the less, my apologies for the slight error on my part.

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

Yes, your point?

(insert sound of POINT flying over/past his head)

But as a last mention, Nigel so sorry that I have, apparently taken over, and dominated your thread, just that, sometimes when attempting to prove that anothers "Proof", isn't, well the only way to do it is to reveal a 'Proof' that is.

As for you "other" two, I note clearly that neither of you addressed the point I made about the "plume" problem, that your responce(s) does NOT address, and actually tells that it must be behaving completely opposite to what is known, therefore illogical and inconsistant with the facts of reality as they are known.

Furthered by the simplicity that neither of you will admit that in that, (as I had told you it was) inhomogenous and anisotropic "circle", (you do know what those two words mean, don't you?*) you cannot cancel out the unequal, and therefore not opposite, lines.


*Don't bother answering, it is both a waste of time, and server space. Thanks

[Brad_Ad23]

Of course Parsons! You're right! IF we take any inhomogenous object we cannot have any center of gravity in it at all! Nevermind the integrals that exist for finding such things at all! It may be distributed oddly, but there will exist in it some point where all the force vectors are canceled out. As stated, the CENTER OF GRAVITY need NOT coincide with the CENTER OF THE OBJECT.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

13/06/2003

So Brad_AD23, lets try a simple experiment, logical and consistent.

Draw a circle r = 5, at this point we see acceleration due to gravity as being equal to 5 m per sec2, and, as you have so insistently, and repetitively, told me, all of the vectors cancel to ZERO "NET" force, but there is pressure, as that is the resultant of the "Zero 'Net' force".

So Brad_AD23, as I have put in my profile, I was a mechanic, as there are lots of kinds of mechanics, Auto, Truck, Gas, Diesel, Electrical, Engineering, Robotic, Stationary, Ship, Submarine, Aerospace, Airplane, Small engine, Industrial, Spacecraft, etc. etc. I will not tell you which combinations of those I have been, but I have the experience and the learning to understand (Some/most?) mechanical things.

Now, the pressure that is exerted within that circle, r = 5, is a mechanical pressure, (from, as you two keep repeating, from "All of the weight above") and one of the features of mechanical pressures is that they are even throughout. Across the diameter of that circle the pressure is isotropic and homogenous.

(The same at all points, to the center, and back out)

Now, in that circle, draw me another circle at r = 2, and here we will see the waning of the force of gravity, as both you and Heusdens keep telling me it diminishes all the way down, so here the force of acceleration due to gravity is 2 m per sec2, and all of the vectors cancel out to equate to a pressure exertion. (Zero "net" force, ergo, now a pressuriz(ed)ing force)

Now, I want you to explain to everyone in this forum how the pressure that can be generated by a 2 m per sec2 force, can exceed the pressure that is generated by a 5 m per sec2 force, BECAUSE, very clearly, WE KNOW that the pressure is increasing, as we move towards the center of the Earth, without question.

Please use "consistent, and logical" reasoning to explain your response.


PS If you attempt to tell me, "Well (Mr.) Parsons, it sums", then I am going to have a great laugh, because if it is 'summing', then it must be at 7 m per sec2 that you have dodged the plume problem, well not surprising, NOT AT ALL!

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons, you have no idea about physics at all. It is a summing process (the pressure). But perhaps before we answer your question, you should answer heusdens and tell us what direction is the magnitude of the force then at the center of gravity? And also, for a more consice answer of your question, go back to one of those links I submitted sometime ago. I beleive it describes a mechanism somewhere (not sure because its been awhile). At any rate the summing of the weight does occur, and the two forces meeting at one point do indeed create a pressure that is measured as force per area, and the gravitational forces do cancel out. Now, if you are so right Mr. Parsons, please submit your revolutionary work to a reputable journal and I look forward to reading it and seeing the actual mathematics behind your wacky gravity theory that has gravity vectors passing through the center of gravity like it didn't exist.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

# 1) you should answer heusdens and tell us what direction is the magnitude of the force then at the center of gravity? # 2) And also, for a more consice answer of your question, go back to one of those links I submitted sometime ago.


# 1) Did that already, so simply follow your own advice, and go look. (I have been explicite that I would not reveal the "mechanism", simply the result, which I have, soooo)


# 2) I have, there is no explaination, that is something that both, you, and heusdens, have been rather remise on, rather you have been very repetative with things like,

GET A PHYSICS BOOK (own two)

GO BACK TO SCHOOL (still learning)

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT NEWTON SAID (really, your right, I never met the man, but I have read some of his historical works)

If there is an explaination, cite it please, you do know where your own work is, don't you?

EDIT PS went back and fixed the error in that mis-cited post.

[heusdens]

What is the direction of the force of gravity at the center of gravity?

WHAT DIRECTION???

You can not escape thos question so easily.

Tell us!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the direction of the force of gravity at the center of gravity?
WHAT DIRECTION???
You can not escape thos question so easily.

Tell us!

As I have told you, I have already posted the responce to that, it is in the previous writing.

Secondly, for someone who has offered very little, in the manner of explainations, (other then repepepepepepepetitions) I sincerley don't think you have the right to DEMAND anything from me, after all, you have never addressed the plume question, and neither have you answered to me on just how you accomplish getting the r = 2 circle to pressurize in a manner greater then the r = 5 circle has already accomplished!

(without "summing it' hence r = 7, and if you want to tell me you believe that it works as you have described it, without explaining exactly how that pressure differential is accompished, go to New York City, the have a bridge, someone wants to sell it to you, cause if you would wish to fool yourself, go right ahead, you need not my permission, simply that you will not be fooling me!...got that?)

God willing, I will cede the floor to anyone who can prove that that r = 5, r = 2 thing can be worked. (without summing it!)......otherwise simply accept that "current theory", as it was understood, has been proven to be wrong! simple as that.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons 2003 (pg 15)
Think ya missed that, know it actually, ya missed the point which is the zero, and the energy that comes out of that/this, my point, (?) exactly!
(As Originally posted, in COLOR )



----------------
© Mr. Robin Parsons 2003 (pg 16 time 05-31-2003 10:14 PM '3rd from the bottom)

By Zero Point Energy, (Principal!) the G/T cyclic, that I have mentioned, in this thread as well, it is shortwaved, and cycled back out as thermal energy, that is where the gravitational energy, culmatively, is directed.

Can you figure that one out?

[Brad_Ad23]

Anyways, to get back to Nigel.

I have a few questions for you.

1. Gravity is caused by an isotropic pressure field that is shielded by mass, so you claim. That is, no matter where you are on the surface of the earth, there will be a force coming from above to push us down. We may view this as a bunch of arrows directed towards the center of the earth. My question is, what causes those arrows (in this case the pressure) to want to push down on the earth in the first place? If we remove the earth, the vectors should still have to point towards a central point (I believe cosmologists refer to this as a hedgehog). The pressure field cannot simply revert to a no mass state, for which direction would the pressure go?


2. Regardless of the outcome of question 1, this one is alone tricky. We know that your pressure 'stuff' cannot go through mass. After all, mass is what shields us from it, and if it was able to travel through mass, it would not be able to exert the force on us. So, say we dig a tunnel down into the earth, it doesn't matter how deep. On the top of this tunnel, we put a lid, with a ball attatched to a mechanism. The tunnel is now shielded by the lid, and effectivly there should be no gravity in the tunnel now, since the pressure field cannot reach it (remember, the mass is shielding the inside of the tunnel from the force! Its as if the earth itself was there and there was no tunnel, and if it can go through the lid, then how does it exert the force on us, and how does it not interfere with itself coming from opposite directions on the earth). So, we fire the mechanism, which lets go of the ball. According to this, the ball should remain where it is. After all, no downward force from above acting on it. It is shielded by mass from below, and by mass from above. Yet, observation time and time again shows the ball still falls. How is this so?

[yogi]

I would concur Brad - the mass shielding rationale leaves something out - but the equation may offer insight into a holistic explanation of gravity based upon expansion - if mass reacts to expansion then the force vectors would be isotropically convergent upon the mass if the expansion were spherically symmetrical - and the strength thereof would depend upon two factors - the amount of mass and the acceleration factor G (vol accel/per unit mass). In other words, the combination of an acceleration field G and mass leads to a spatial pressure gradient as I suggested in the gravity paradox topic on the Forum. Anyway - I also would like to hear Nigel's response to your questions.

[Brad_Ad23]

It could indeed offer insight, but it has physical problems. A big one is number 1. The vectors cannot be arranged like that, unless they will be so for all time. And if they were to revert back to some other form if the earth were no longer there, which form and why were they directed to the earth then? Number 2 is also important. I too await some explination.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Anyways, to get back to Nigel.

I have a few questions for you.

1. Gravity is caused by an isotropic pressure field that is shielded by mass, so you claim. That is, no matter where you are on the surface of the earth, there will be a force coming from above to push us down. We may view this as a bunch of arrows directed towards the center of the earth. My question is, what causes those arrows (in this case the pressure) to want to push down on the earth in the first place? If we remove the earth, the vectors should still have to point towards a central point (I believe cosmologists refer to this as a hedgehog). The pressure field cannot simply revert to a no mass state, for which direction would the pressure go?


2. Regardless of the outcome of question 1, this one is alone tricky. We know that your pressure 'stuff' cannot go through mass. After all, mass is what shields us from it, and if it was able to travel through mass, it would not be able to exert the force on us. So, say we dig a tunnel down into the earth, it doesn't matter how deep. On the top of this tunnel, we put a lid, with a ball attatched to a mechanism. The tunnel is now shielded by the lid, and effectivly there should be no gravity in the tunnel now, since the pressure field cannot reach it (remember, the mass is shielding the inside of the tunnel from the force! Its as if the earth itself was there and there was no tunnel, and if it can go through the lid, then how does it exert the force on us, and how does it not interfere with itself coming from opposite directions on the earth). So, we fire the mechanism, which lets go of the ball. According to this, the ball should remain where it is. After all, no downward force from above acting on it. It is shielded by mass from below, and by mass from above. Yet, observation time and time again shows the ball still falls. How is this so?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: The inward space pressure is produced by the conservation of volume when there is an outward motion of mass. The first time I saw the aircraft film of the 11 megaton Castle shot 2, 28 Feb 1954, I was amazed that the steam or debris at ground level moves back towards ground zero as the blast moves outward!!!!

This is not just an afterwind due to the low pressure under a rapidly rising fireball, it is a return of air which has physically moved outward. The expansion of hot air reduces the air density near ground zero to 1 % of normal air density, and the outward-blasted air returns in a "suction" phase directed back towards ground zero. This set off my search for a similar effect in the big bang, with the fabric of space taking the place of the returning air. It is useful to have a concrete analogy in your mind to help you get through doing the maths objectively.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: X-rays go through your hand, which is nearly empty. Gravity is the weakest force known in the universe. The amount of shielding is exceedingly small. We do not shield the earth to any appreciable extent, nor does your tunnel lid. It takes a mass as great as the earth to cause the shielding which makes all objects fall down with the same acceleration.

I think that Mr Parsons raised a point that a sheet of steel should have a different weight standing on end than it would have if flat. This doesn't measurably happen because (1) the steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration towards the earth, that is being done by the earth shielding the steel, and that shield is irrespective of the orientation of the shield, and (2) the gravitational mass points in the steel (fundamental particles) are very small, and even in a large amount of material, they will not be exactly behind one another.

If you had a big enough shield, then you could indeed do what you say. A lid with the mass of the earth placed over a tunnel would have a decent effect on the space pressure and hence "gravity" in the tunnel.

What I would like to add is that, looking back at all this, I can see why people like Newton were sensible to not say what they had, mathematically proved until pushed. I am not a clever person in terms of exam grades, but I put a lot of hard work into the gravity mechanism, and thought that it was worth publication. However, if you work on anything like this, anything basic, you are censored out. You are ridiculed. If you then hit back, you have a personality problem. Anything you do is not tolerated, and you are called intolerant if you push. Science is not fun.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Goodness, I used "Common Knowledge" to demonstrate that what Brad, and Heusdens, were saying was the manner of operation, was wrong!

I thought science was fun, because anyone who can understand/learn/explore/discover/advance it, can succeed at it!

(but you need to be able to prove it/&yourself)

[Brad_Ad23]

You still left a big gaping hole there Nigel. The vectors of the pressure that are supposedly being directed towards the mass have to have some reason for going that way. And what of when the mass is no longer at that point in space? How do these vectors readjust themselves to in effect return to this isotropic pressure field?


And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

Also, why is it that if say the moon is at one point in its orbit, the side of the earth opposite the moon will receive a stronger (not noticably stronger mind you) pull down? If they are already shielded from the rest of the earth, the moon should not make any difference.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

(snip) Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons) (snip).

Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??

[Brad_Ad23]

Well by definition the center of gravity of a body is where the internal gravitational effects are zero, but ok. They can't cancel out at the center of gravity according to you. There.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

2003-06-18

Originally posted by Yogi....*here* (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2435&perpage=&pagenumber=1)

(snip)the first time I encounted this notion was in Ted Harrisons text book "Cosmology" in connection with black holes - the idea being that space flows in toward black holes at a speed c at the event horizon ergo, light cannot escape since it cannot travel upstream at greater than c. Tom Martin has developed the mathematical theory for a number of experiments(snip)
Originally posted by Yogi
(snip)In other words, the combination of an acceleration field G and mass leads to a spatial pressure gradient as I suggested in the gravity paradox topic on the Forum. Anyway - I also would like to hear(snip)

Oh!, I get it now, your all trying to limelight

LIMELIGHTERS is what ya are!

Tell me, how does YOUR theory of gravity make it compress to the center??


(Hahahahahahahhehehehehehehehehhohohohohohohohohoh ohhuhuhuhuhuhuhuyuckyuckyucknyucknyucknyuck ad infinitum......)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, my original question was; "Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??"

Followed by your responce;Originally posted by Brad_Ad23 Well by definition the center of gravity of a body is where the internal gravitational effects are zero, but ok. They can't cancel out at the center of gravity according to you. There.

Which proves the obvious, you can't even read.

and the red part, want to find where I stated that please, or simply admit to the above statement, as clearly, it holds more truth then you will ever admit to.

Whadda yutz!

Alexander, ever played Fuse ball?

[Brad_Ad23]

Furthered by the simplicity that neither of you will admit that in that, (as I had told you it was) inhomogenous and anisotropic "circle", (you do know what those two words mean, don't you?*) you cannot cancel out the unequal, and therefore not opposite, lines.

Right there you say you can't cancel out the forces at the center of gravity.

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe)

Again a statement claiming the net force at the center of gravity is not zero.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by moi
Furthered by the simplicity that neither of you will admit that in that, (as I had told you it was) inhomogenous and anisotropic "circle", (you do know what those two words mean, don't you?*) you cannot cancel out the unequal, and therefore not opposite, lines. this statement is in reference to the idea of you two canceling everything out, prior to it getting to the center, based upon it all being equal and opposite, which it is not!

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe) Again, your gaming, notice the insistence that you had with "zero net force", OH WAIT, WHAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION AGAIN???


OH yes,""Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??""

And your responce to that question is where?????

This?
Again a statement claiming the net force at the center of gravity is not zero.

Funny what you quote says "at the core", not "at the center of gravity" Hummmm, wonders if Brad_AD23 can read, or not at all??


case you miss reading it again, here......
,""Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??""

[Brad_Ad23]

Until it was pointed out specifically by me that we were referring to the center of gravity, the discussion was operating under the assumption center of the earth and core referred to the center of gravity.


and nobody is saying you said there was No center of gravity. By specific technicality you did however when you stated there was force there. Centers of gravity CANNOT have an unbalanced amount of force, otherwise they are no longer centers of gravity. Perhaps it is you who cannot grasp the differences.

[yogi]

Nigel - I would agree that trying to get across a new concept is not fun - its an uphill battle because you - like an inertial mass, will necessarily experience a counter force whenever you attempt to make a change - Now while I would agree that the ultimate cause of gravity is expansion - I, like Brad, would object to the physical explanation that involves mass shielding - By the way, your equation is identical to that of Friedmann for a universe where q = 1 (no slowing due to gravity). For q = 1/2 (critical density), the coefficient is 3/8 rather than 3/4 - and this leads to a value of H = 57 (close to Sandage's value (56-58). Are you getting any responses from the physics community following the publication in Electrons World?

[yogi]

Some more comments for Nigel - if anything useful is to come out of these forums, it will be because one person provokes another into thinking about things - or to examine their own theories - or contribute to another's idea which is not fully worked out, so with that in mind, let me ask the following: We will take for example a planet like the earth which travels about the Sun - according to your rationale, the Sun is acting as a shield in some manner as to the field generated by expansion. Now lets reduce the size of the Sun to a Black hole - we know that from the standpoint of its affect on the earths orbit, it makes no difference whether the mass is concentrated in a small black hole (about 1/2 a kilometer across) or whether it is very large as it is at present - but how can the small black hole act as a shield? The mass of the Sun has not changed, but the shielding absorption area is drastically reduced. All of the lines of force that were partially absorbed by the Solar size must now be focused onto a small area (again for the Solar mass, I think the black hole radius is about a half a kilometer) and the absorption (affect) must be absolutely unchanged since the orbit of the earth depends only upon G and the solar mass (not its size). The situation poses a radical change in the geometry of the rays that define the force lines

[Brad_Ad23]

Very nice one indeed Yogi! I had yet to think of that arguement. But it is indeed correct.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23
From page 21
And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

.......and from this page
and "nobody" is saying you said there was No center of gravity. By specific technicality you did however when you stated there was force there. Centers of gravity CANNOT have an unbalanced amount of force, otherwise they are no longer centers of gravity. Perhaps it is you who cannot grasp the differences.

Speaks for itself, nominates himself to be "Nobody"

What actually goes on at the center I have speciffically and technically told you I would NOT tell you.

Not just a limelighter, but a "fishing" limelighter at that, So "go figure", or, "go fish", but not in my pond!

[Brad_Ad23]

Again, you fail to read that I use that as a technical extension from your arguments which completely nullify the accepted definition of a center of gravity.

And that is fine if you don't wish to say what is going on there, but don't bring it up. This is for discussion, not saying "I am right and you are wrong, but I won't tell you what is going on that makes me right."

At any rate, I am not interested in you continuing to bring this discussion to a "he said/he said/he said/...etc" debate. You clearly disagree with the current definition of the center of gravity (which includes that inside a body the net gravitational attraction is zero) so you can't believe in that, and that is the definition I am using, not whatever yours is.

So, back to Nigel and yogi and me...we await your responses.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again, you fail to read

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

I think that Mr Parsons raised a point that a sheet of steel should have a different weight standing on end than it would have if flat. This doesn't measurably happen because (1) the steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration towards the earth, that is being done by the earth shielding the steel, and that shield is irrespective of the orientation of the shield, and (2) the gravitational mass points in the steel (fundamental particles) are very small, and even in a large amount of material, they will not be exactly behind one another.


WOW Nigel you ever confuuuuused, "The steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration"

If you had true 'proportionallity to mass', then you would not have needed to use 'surface area' in your planetary measurements.

But you have, and you obviously have confuuuused it to the point that even you don't can't understand what you are saying, ever neat!

So smart he has outsmarted himself, like the only really truly (not) (i)D(i)ot. (Wow, did you miss yourself)

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW Nigel you ever confuuuuused, "The steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration"

If you had true 'proportionallity to mass', then you would not have needed to use 'surface area' in your planetary measurements.

But you have, and you obviously have confuuuused it to the point that even you don't can't understand what you are saying, ever neat!

So smart he has outsmarted himself, like the only really truly (not) (i)D(i)ot. (Wow, did you miss yourself)

No, Mr Parsons! If you drop 1 kg and 10 kg they accelerate at the same rate until air drag takes affect. Shielding of space pressure causes gravity towards the object. It is the bigger object which does the shielding. I fall down because space pressure comes from the side of me which is unshielded, not because of your rudeness![:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Speaks for itself, nominates himself to be "Nobody"

What actually goes on at the center I have speciffically and technically told you I would NOT tell you.

Not just a limelighter, but a "fishing" limelighter at that, So "go figure", or, "go fish", but not in my pond!

We are pushed up by space pressure that comes up through the earth. But it is shielded by something called the earth. Hence the push we get upwards is very slightly less than that which we get downwards.

The earth is a pathetic shield. Go to Jupiter or Saturn, and you will be crushed by gravity, because the bigger mass shields you more. Are you testing my theory, or my patience, Homer![:)]

[Brad_Ad23]

Testing your theory of course! If you are going to stick by it, patience ad infinitum is a virtue :)

I figured that was what you would say, but just wanted to make sure.

However, I believe Yogi brought up an even more interesting challenge to your theory with his post, and I am very very much interested in a reply to that.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
You still left a big gaping hole there Nigel. The vectors of the pressure that are supposedly being directed towards the mass have to have some reason for going that way. And what of when the mass is no longer at that point in space? How do these vectors readjust themselves to in effect return to this isotropic pressure field?


And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

Also, why is it that if say the moon is at one point in its orbit, the side of the earth opposite the moon will receive a stronger (not noticably stronger mind you) pull down? If they are already shielded from the rest of the earth, the moon should not make any difference.

OK, Brad, I've already responded to part of this through a reply in which you were quoted by Mr Parsons (reply above).

As for your vectors. Put a globe of the earth under water. It has a pressure acting on its surface from the water, and you can represent it by your vector arrows. Now take the globe away. You still have the arrows, but they converge and cancel one another, leaving just water pressure. The same happens with space pressure.

The fun thing: I can answer questions until the cows come home, but will anything ever come of it? Will the physics professors ever listen? [:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Nigel - I would agree that trying to get across a new concept is not fun - its an uphill battle because you - like an inertial mass, will necessarily experience a counter force whenever you attempt to make a change - Now while I would agree that the ultimate cause of gravity is expansion - I, like Brad, would object to the physical explanation that involves mass shielding - By the way, your equation is identical to that of Friedmann for a universe where q = 1 (no slowing due to gravity). For q = 1/2 (critical density), the coefficient is 3/8 rather than 3/4 - and this leads to a value of H = 57 (close to Sandage's value (56-58). Are you getting any responses from the physics community following the publication in Electrons World?

I don't deal with Friedman. The derivation has nothing to do with Friedman. I have already explained that while the result is a factor of 2 different from the "flat universe", I do not accept general relativity as it stands because it is just a mathematical marriage between space-time electrodynamics, gravitational potential energy conservation, and Newtonian gravity, which is fiddled into general relativity by setting the weak field solution equal to Newton.

In other words, Einstein had no mechanism. I respect what Einstein did as being the work of a genius. I just want a mechanism, and having had to derive it myself I want to make it available to people properly. This I am prevented from doing by the Gods of physics.

All I can really hope is that experimental data on the density of the universe will provide further validation, and that eventually people will investigate it properly in well-equipped computing and experimental labs, which are not available to me. My university does not even have a physics department. Thanks for your sympathy with the problems.[;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Some more comments for Nigel - if anything useful is to come out of these forums, it will be because one person provokes another into thinking about things - or to examine their own theories - or contribute to another's idea which is not fully worked out, so with that in mind, let me ask the following: We will take for example a planet like the earth which travels about the Sun - according to your rationale, the Sun is acting as a shield in some manner as to the field generated by expansion. Now lets reduce the size of the Sun to a Black hole - we know that from the standpoint of its affect on the earths orbit, it makes no difference whether the mass is concentrated in a small black hole (about 1/2 a kilometer across) or whether it is very large as it is at present - but how can the small black hole act as a shield? The mass of the Sun has not changed, but the shielding absorption area is drastically reduced. All of the lines of force that were partially absorbed by the Solar size must now be focused onto a small area (again for the Solar mass, I think the black hole radius is about a half a kilometer) and the absorption (affect) must be absolutely unchanged since the orbit of the earth depends only upon G and the solar mass (not its size). The situation poses a radical change in the geometry of the rays that define the force lines

Yes, Yogi. The shielding depends on the probability of two particles being in a line, which depends on their sizes. As the overall volume decreases, the particles of matter are compressed, and are closer. So there is more likelyhood of them statistically blocking each other. This would mean that for a black hole caused by a collapsing star, gravity might be less than currently predicted by the blanket application of Newton/Einstein. However, it would not be much. The Pauli exclusion principle limits the compression of matter, and applies to nuclear particles as well when you get down to that state. If particles are of the size of the Planck radius, then you need a lot of compression before any noticeable difference will occur between the Newton/Einstein empirical law and my mechanism.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
We are pushed up by space pressure that comes up through the earth. But it is shielded by something called the earth. Hence the push we get upwards is very slightly less than that which we get downwards.

The earth is a pathetic shield. Go to Jupiter or Saturn, and you will be crushed by gravity, because the bigger mass shields you more. Are you testing my theory, or my patience,

Why did you bother to 'cite me' when you refer to none of it, what a maroooon.

As for testing your theory, no point in testing what is proven to be wrong, now is there. (then again, with your "two sidekicks" now.....why bother)

And then there's Brad_AD23, didn't read carefully enough to realize Nigel was responding to me, not him, get some glasses Brad_AD23, or learn how to read Brad_AD23, or give it up Brad_AD23!

Just read this, by you, Nigel.....

In other words, Einstein had no mechanism. I respect what Einstein did as being the work of a genius. I just want a mechanism, and having had to derive it myself I want to make it available to people properly. This I am prevented from doing by the Gods of physics.

Had to come back, to EDIT this, to tell you, "Thank You!! Nigel" you just gave me the biggest laugh of my day!

Ps Nigel, so you don't think gravity goes past the surface of the earth, like down in the mines it no longer works, right? (How {insert insult} is that? rhetorically asked, of course)

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons I believe he was responding to both of us. The first part had a quote from you yes, but the second part has the answer to one of my questions (that is, if the space pressure can go through the earth and push up on is). How funny...I guess you did not read that :)

[Brad_Ad23]

Also, to Nigel.

Alright, you are treating spacetime (or just space) as a fluid here. How is it the sun or any other body can shield an object from pressure? If I put two balls in a tank under water, they both experience equal pressure. So, even if the sun somehow shielded the earth from pressure, there is a lot of distance between the two, and plenty of space pressure from outside the line of sight of the two bodies to flow inbetween. Even then, in the line of sight between the two objects, there will be less pressure, due to mutual shielding..so should not objects be drawn to exist between the two? (PS I know the answer to this--it even supports you, but I want to make sure you catch it).

At any rate, let us also examine Yogi's situation. We have the same amount of mass present, but it is in a much smaller area. How does this smaller area still exert the same gravitational pull on earth? Einstein's explination of spacetime curvature serve to explain this, and one can see that in Newtonian mechanics the object is treated as a point anyways, but your explination requires there to be some surface area to shield. I agree that in a lot of cases your idea can be viewed as equivalent, but there do appear to be some differences here in what your idea will predict. The cause of gravity in your model suggests that there should be less attraction then between the black hole sun and the earth. Were that so, other observational evidence of binary systems with a black hole present would be far off from what they are (which have their orbital mechanics worked out the Einstein way).

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Also, to Nigel.

Alright, you are treating spacetime (or just space) as a fluid here. How is it the sun or any other body can shield an object from pressure? If I put two balls in a tank under water, they both experience equal pressure. So, even if the sun somehow shielded the earth from pressure, there is a lot of distance between the two, and plenty of space pressure from outside the line of sight of the two bodies to flow inbetween. Even then, in the line of sight between the two objects, there will be less pressure, due to mutual shielding..so should not objects be drawn to exist between the two? (PS I know the answer to this--it even supports you, but I want to make sure you catch it).

At any rate, let us also examine Yogi's situation. We have the same amount of mass present, but it is in a much smaller area. How does this smaller area still exert the same gravitational pull on earth? Einstein's explination of spacetime curvature serve to explain this, and one can see that in Newtonian mechanics the object is treated as a point anyways, but your explination requires there to be some surface area to shield. I agree that in a lot of cases your idea can be viewed as equivalent, but there do appear to be some differences here in what your idea will predict. The cause of gravity in your model suggests that there should be less attraction then between the black hole sun and the earth. Were that so, other observational evidence of binary systems with a black hole present would be far off from what they are (which have their orbital mechanics worked out the Einstein way).

Since air and water are not continuums, but particle-composed, they seep around gaps fairly quickly. But if you are quick you can beat the particle velocity and use them to model a continuum.

For instance, in the air the air pressure, 101 kiloPascals or 14.7 pounds per square inch, would be enough to make objects "attract" each other, if the air did not seep between them. When you have a smooth surface and you put a piece of rubber against it (called a "suction plunger" in England), then yoy find that its apparent weight is more than its actual weight by an amount equal to the 14.7 pounds per square inch air pressure. Hence the suction plunger attracts the surface because it is being pushed down by air pressure.

The weight due to gravity is likewise caused by the space pressure.

Now for black holes, their mass is calculated, and the evidence is not that precise. In addition, many assumptions are made about gravity in order to get the mass calculations done. Most of these estimates are uncertain by a very large factor, although I hope that decent results will arive soon which can test this properly.[:)]

[Nigel]

Robin Parsons asks repeatedly about the areas used in my calculations. It is just one way of doing the calculations, to consider the relative fraction of the surface area of a sphere surrounding you which is being blocked by mass. Notice that the area shielded is defined in terms of the total amount of mass.

When I calculate the effective shielded area, this is not the same as the surface area of the earth. The area of the actual object is immaterial. The area of the shield is equal to the shielding area of all the little particles inside the mass.

To work out the space pressure shielding by the planet earth, calculate the number of particles, multiply that by their average cross-sectional areas (for gravity, not nuclear reactions!). These areas are not involved in my calculation because other factors cancel, but for sake of argument assume that the Planck size is the average radius. Then you get a total cross-sectional area for all the particles in the planet, and you can work out the overlap by dividing that area into the surface area of the earth. Since the result is a very small fraction, the overlap is insignificant.[:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

2003-06-20

So Houston's, (Oooops) we don't have a problem Houston's I am Xazen13, not Apollo 13

HugeDent, uhmmm, I mean Heusdense, well youse just a "Head Butting" anyways, ain't ya?

But tell me 'Hugedent', when you got your "Head Butting", don't you have to fight for the "Wind"? (up there? is it silent, in there, too?)

Brad_AD23, WOW Braaaaad, you think that GiGel was talking to you too, as opposed to responding, once again, to my testing of his theory of "Surface Area, 'Push Force', from spaaaaaace", personally I think you goofed it completely, Oooooops my mistake, he was addressing you, right there/here......

Originally posted by Gigel

Homer[:)]

You were right Braaaaaad, he waaaas talking to you!!

Gigel, errrrr............uhmmm, I mean Nigel, well what can I tell you, The "God of Physics" has seemingly so graced you with the culminatory answer of the "Proof of the Cause of Gravity", and, according to you, the "Gods of Physics" (really just the very hard working people in the scientific publicational field who must, thankfully, socialize amongst themselves) couldn't see the blessings that the real "God of Physics" (the creator!) has thus bestowed upon you!

Maybe because the real one didn't actually give it to you, and the editors of Scientific journals know enough to forewarn each other that some peoples papers, no matter how many times they seem to be able to effectively argue around that little circle of thought, that is little more then a slight adjustment to current knowledge, yet claiming to be a "Revolutionary insight into the intimacies of gravitational theory", they could still forewarn each other, due to the restrictive nature of their time schedules, and not wanting to "waste there time" explaining to you why you are wrong!!

Clearly angers you, "life’s work", not easy to see it fail, is it?

PS Gigel, Originally posted by Gigel
Robin Parsons asks repeatedly about the areas used in my calculations.
Good shot Gigel, but nothing but "bull" as I haven't asked about it, I have simply pointed it out, as it clearly tells of your errors, in this process.
("Sheilded Earth" means NO PRESSURIZATION, HUH?? that ain't right!)

And Yogi, what the heck is a 'Yogi', a bear? no he had 'Boo Boo' as sidekick, so that is what needs to be put upon a paper, that might be written, from the conversation in this forum, Contributing (what??) authors, et Yogi? Nah!

So in remembrance of you, I will leave here, in a fashion that is devoted to your styles, with a question, because you rarely answered any of my questions, so I already know I need not come back to see if you have answered this one, cause it really don't matter, at all, anymore..........

OK?

[yogi]

Some comments - First, while Nigels approach may not be accepatable to conventional cosmologist, lets look at the positives 1) it has the right units for G, 2)it offers a mechanism which is absent from both Newtonian and GR, 3)the value calculated for G by Nigel is close to the measured value of G if one takes the universe as having critical density.

Now I would say that what is needed is a substitute for the notion of shielding - this introduces a lot of complexity which cannot be easily resolved by experiment - in fact I cannot see how shielding can be applied since it is apparently necessary to make an adjustment each time the size of the gravitational body is changed (e.g. compressed or expanded - it would be difficult to find a mechanism that would operatively cause the particles in the gravitational body to line up or correlate in different density spheres of the same mass so as to always effect the same shielding for some other body at any arbitrary distance therefrom. In fact the only functionality that will work is to pre-suppose that every spherically symmetrical mass produces some conditioning of space that is isotropic relative to its geometric center - but this can't be a shielding effect - but it can be a spatial retardation effect acting upon expansion - one centered on the c.g. of the gravitation producing sphere.

Nigel - what I attempted to say in my earlier post is that your equation already existed - it was derived by Friedmann in 1923 - it is simply the classical retardation of the universe due to gravitational slowing - it does not depend on GRT although one can get to the same result through GRT. However, I would hasten to say that you have put a different spin on it - in effect by treating the expansion as instrumental to causation - rather than treating G as the factor that slows expansion.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Some comments - First, while Nigels approach may not be accepatable to conventional cosmologist, lets look at the positives 1) it has the right units for G, 2)it offers a mechanism which is absent from both Newtonian and GR, 3)the value calculated for G by Nigel is close to the measured value of G if one takes the universe as having critical density.

Now I would say that what is needed is a substitute for the notion of shielding - this introduces a lot of complexity which cannot be easily resolved by experiment - in fact I cannot see how shielding can be applied since it is apparently necessary to make an adjustment each time the size of the gravitational body is changed (e.g. compressed or expanded - it would be difficult to find a mechanism that would operatively cause the particles in the gravitational body to line up or correlate in different density spheres of the same mass so as to always effect the same shielding for some other body at any arbitrary distance therefrom. In fact the only functionality that will work is to pre-suppose that every spherically symmetrical mass produces some conditioning of space that is isotropic relative to its geometric center - but this can't be a shielding effect - but it can be a spatial retardation effect acting upon expansion - one centered on the c.g. of the gravitation producing sphere.

Nigel - what I attempted to say in my earlier post is that your equation already existed - it was derived by Friedmann in 1923 - it is simply the classical retardation of the universe due to gravitational slowing - it does not depend on GRT although one can get to the same result through GRT. However, I would hasten to say that you have put a different spin on it - in effect by treating the expansion as instrumental to causation - rather than treating G as the factor that slows expansion.

Yogi, I have a proof, and the resulting equation happens to be a factor of 2 different from the "flat universe" which fell down in 1999 when Dr Perlmutter discovered that distant supernovae do not slow down as predicted by any "magic law" version of gravity.

It is quite wrong to suggest that the Planck length or the nuclear sizes of particles vary when matter is compressed. What varies is the distance between the particles, not the sizes of the particles themselves.

I am, once again, forced to say that I deplore mathematical "law" prediction guesswork. What I have always wanted to find is a mechanism behind the force of gravity. This is a different philosophy from guesswork/empirical equations. It seems that some people will always try to use old knowledge to discredit new knowledge. As a result, in order to defend new knowledge, an assault must be made on the old garbage. I would prefer to take a nice approach, to have my paper printed in Nature/Physical Review Letters, so that people are aware that there is a mechanism. However, they are at present too intolerant to allow that.[:)]

[yogi]

First of all - in physics there are no proofs of ideas - only relationships via algebra - one cannot prove an idea - ideas can only be disproven. Secondly, there is no proof that Purlmutters data establishes that the universe is accelerating - that is one interpretation - it may well be that some of the constants were different billions of years ago, and the dimmer 1a supernova data is the result of less energetic events (your own theory predicts a variable G) and if G were stronger in the past the supernova event would be triggered by less mass (Chandaraska's forumla). There are other explanations that would account for the dimming - but my point is that one particular interpretation is not proof - it is a theory - and if your theory depends upon another theory - it is doubly doubtful that it is the final word on gravity

When did I say that planck length changes - I was only referring to the size of the objects that generate the so called shadowing to which you refer - the individual atoms dont have to change size unless you get to an extreme gravitational situation (neutron star or black hole).

Moreover - the flat universe has never been discredited - in fact the most recent CBR studies indicate that the universe is flat - where are you getting your information

In all due respect - I perceive that you are exhibiting some of the intolerance that you have attributed to the authorities that refuse to publish your idea. I have told you twice now that the exact same formulation has been known since 1923 - look up Freidmann's work - depending upon the value assigned to q, you get exactly the same result as you have claimed as original. At the time Friedmann derived the relationship, he considered different models of the universe - some flat, some spherical etc. For q = 1 the Friedmann relationship is G = 3H^2/4(pi)(rho) - does it look familiar?

[r637h]

Did the Strong, Weak, and Eletromagnetic Forces exist before Planck Time? I assume they didn't.

What about Gravity? If there was any kind of expansion before Planck Time, doesn't it follow that Gravity existed?

Thanks, Rudi

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
First of all - in physics there are no proofs of ideas - only relationships via algebra - one cannot prove an idea - ideas can only be disproven. Secondly, there is no proof that Purlmutters data establishes that the universe is accelerating - that is one interpretation - it may well be that some of the constants were different billions of years ago, and the dimmer 1a supernova data is the result of less energetic events (your own theory predicts a variable G) and if G were stronger in the past the supernova event would be triggered by less mass (Chandaraska's forumla). There are other explanations that would account for the dimming - but my point is that one particular interpretation is not proof - it is a theory - and if your theory depends upon another theory - it is doubly doubtful that it is the final word on gravity

When did I say that planck length changes - I was only referring to the size of the objects that generate the so called shadowing to which you refer - the individual atoms dont have to change size unless you get to an extreme gravitational situation (neutron star or black hole).

Moreover - the flat universe has never been discredited - in fact the most recent CBR studies indicate that the universe is flat - where are you getting your information

In all due respect - I perceive that you are exhibiting some of the intolerance that you have attributed to the authorities that refuse to publish your idea. I have told you twice now that the exact same formulation has been known since 1923 - look up Freidmann's work - depending upon the value assigned to q, you get exactly the same result as you have claimed as original. At the time Friedmann derived the relationship, he considered different models of the universe - some flat, some spherical etc. For q = 1 the Friedmann relationship is G = 3H^2/4(pi)(rho) - does it look familiar?

No proof in science. You therefore think that mathematical assertions without any proof of the CAUSE of gravity by Friedmann, are acceptable. I disagree strongly. You are trying to get away from the CAUSE of gravity and escape into an ivory tower fairy land of maths. Please do. But don't waste space. Many thanks. NC.[;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by r637h
Did the Strong, Weak, and Eletromagnetic Forces exist before Planck Time? I assume they didn't.

What about Gravity? If there was any kind of expansion before Planck Time, doesn't it follow that Gravity existed?

Thanks, Rudi

Current textbook wisdom is that all the forces unify into a superforce when you go back as far as Planck time, but don't say anything about what happened before then.

When you consider causes, you do not automatically get varying gravity. My Electronics World paper deals with nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic force mechanisms, including the reasons for attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and why the other forces are attractive only.

I also derived Maxwell's two curl equations in that paper, and the divergence equation for electric field (which is Gauss' equation, i.e., Coulomb's law in field notation, where force = field strength times charge), and the reason for no magnetic monopoles (the fourth Maxwell equation, div.B = 0). Getting these results unified seems important to science, but there are strong forces at work to stand in the way of all progress! [;)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
The formulation derived by Nigel is idential to Friedmann's equation except for a factor of 2 - this does not prove that gravity is caused by expansion - it is a relationship between the deceleration of the universe due to the retarding effect of the totality of cosmic matter. Friedman's equation for critical density
[rho = 3H^2/8pi(G)] is the same. I would agree however that gravity is a consequence of expansion - I derived an identical formulation about 10 years ago based upon expansion. This was published on the net for some time under the name "Cosmodynamics"

Above quote found on page 17, from Yogi. Yogi here makes the allegation that my step by step proof of the cause of gravity gives a result which is "identical" to Friedman except for a factor of 2 difference! The factor of two is precisely the point. I notice that in your more recent statement, Yogi, that you omit the factor of 2 difference.

Then you ignore my proof. Take the 1919 solar eclipse. There were two predictions for the deflection of sunlight, the Newtonian, and Einstein's. The Newtonian was derived by Solder in the 19th century and by Einstein in 1911, when he put space-time into gravitation, omitting the energy considerations which he only included in 1915 when he became expert at tensor analysis. Therefore there was a factor of two difference.

Hence, Yogi, you should be first claiming that Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity are "identical except for a factor of 2"!!!!!

THE POINT IS THE PROOF. MATHS WITHOUT PROOF IS SPECULATION. AS FOR YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU DISCOVERED THE EQUATION FIRST, THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE PROOF IS UNIMPORTANT.

[:)]

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
Huesdens - it isn't really necessary to involve the early universe in the mathematics of Nigel - simply consider the present state of the universe as a spherically symmetrical expansion - take the volume and differentiate twice - this gives you the volumetric acceleration (8piRc^2) - then make a volume to surface transformation using the divergence theorem (this simplifies to dividing by 4piR^2 for a sphere) - so the effective isotropic acceleration is 2c^2/R - from here you can get to Nigels result. Note that Nigels formulation predicts that G varies with time - When I first arrived at this result some years ago it bothered me because the experiments show G to be constant - but the problem is that all the experiments are measuring the MG product - not G alone - that is they measure orbital consistency of satellites over a period of years.

OK, Yogi. Found this on page 18. My proof of the cause of gravity is shielding of space pressure. Your mathematical procedure does not elucidate the mechanism of the cause of gravity! Mathematical games without understanding is not science! [:)]

[r637h]

My understanding is that we cannot "see" back to events beyond the uniform cosmic background in that it represents the "Big Bang" itself.

The background is uniform, but not *totally* uniform. Is that just statistical variation or does it represent the limit of sensitivity of the measurement itself; or is it *true* uniformity?

If there is *some* non-uniformity, does that give us any further clues as to the nature of its origin?

Thanks, Rudi

Mark Twain on Common Sense: "Any fool can tell the World is flat just by looking at it!"

[r637h]

Regarding models of the Universe: Do I understand correctly that if Friedman's q=0, then all Universes are closed?

Thanks, Rudi

"Don't confuse me with Logic" --several authors.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by r637h
My understanding is that we cannot "see" back to events beyond the uniform cosmic background in that it represents the "Big Bang" itself.

The background is uniform, but not *totally* uniform. Is that just statistical variation or does it represent the limit of sensitivity of the measurement itself; or is it *true* uniformity?

If there is *some* non-uniformity, does that give us any further clues as to the nature of its origin?

Thanks, Rudi

Mark Twain on Common Sense: "Any fool can tell the World is flat just by looking at it!"

The cosmic background is a 2.734 K blackbody spectrum, which the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite surveyed over a decade ago, finding variations which a NASA official called "the face of God". They know how to do their marketing, but not their science.

It eventually turned out that the ripples which were supposed to indicate the variations from which galaxy superclusters etc grew from (like seeds), do not statistically correspond to the large scale observed structure of the universe. Instead of doing something more useful, they are now hoping to repeat the attempt with a higher-resolution instrument.

Good luck to them. What pains me, though, is that fundamental questions like "what causes gravity" are not just ignored by big-time, big-budget, world publicised science, but they are also ridiculed and dismissed by the taxpayers-money-squandering speculators. Lets get science straight in theory, then we'll know what the devil to spend all that money on experimentally! [:)]

[yogi]

r637 - in answer to your question re the lookback time - we can see theoretically to the decoupling era - that was the time when the universe became visible so to speak - and it corresponded with inception of the cosmic background radiation - it is not the proverbeal "big bang" but a later era.

Nigel - you are confusing two different aspects of gravity - one is the prediction that gravity affects both space and time as per Einstein - that led to a doubling of the light bending by the Sun - 1/2 due to spatial distortion -- 1/2 due to temporal distortion - this has noth