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

[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, 1/6^thof it's weight here on Earth, because, 1/6^th 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 explanation 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 separate 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 separate 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 traveling 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 explanation 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 + 1^{n'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 you are, and your not accounting for reality, in anything other then a duplicitous manner...case you missed it, reality speaks its 'facts' with only "one" voice, it's existence, the self evident truth that it is!

Think you missed that, know it actually, you 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)^{n'th degree, from it's, 1 + 1(-1)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 definately 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 + 1^{n'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 you are, and your not accounting for reality, in anything other then a duplicitous manner...case you missed it, reality speaks its 'facts' with only "one" voice, it's existence, the self evident truth that it is!

Think you missed that, know it actually, you 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)^{n'th degree, from it's, 1 + 1(-1)n'th degree, which was a wrong placement of the 1 (one!) So Sorry...}

<sup>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.</sup>

 

[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...

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...

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...

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...

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!

 

[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¤

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 definately 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 realize 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.

 

[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 explanation 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 explanation 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 across 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 across 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.