Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

[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]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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 you 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 explanation 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]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [/i

Yes, an explanation 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 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 receive 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 don't 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 don't 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 don't 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 got to tell you 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 occurring anywhere...not on this planet.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
I got to tell you 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 occurring anywhere...not on this planet.

You have definitely 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 occurring 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, going to "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, going to "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.