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

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets put it this way, Newton DID NOT have the PROOF of the FACT that the center of the Earth is a steel ball!

Which brings us to a simple dilemma, (for all of you) as we have found that we have a solid (greater denstiy) sitting inside, at the center of, a massive amount of liquid (lessor density) and all of you trying to tell me that there is less gravity there, then above it, where we find the liquid of lessor density.

So how do you achieve a greater density, in a space of less gravity, when all pressurizations, other then mechanical, are as a result of gravity?

P.S. Simply put, Newton was wrong!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel
At the centre of the earth, there is no net push from the fabric of space in any direction. In other words, in the middle a person is equally shielded by the Earth isotropically (in all directions).

Gravitation is not an attractive effect. The acceleration of objects towards each other is due to their mutual shielding, although a person's shielding of the Earth is insignificant conpared to the Earth's shielding of a person, so in effect only the Earth is doing significant shielding when you consider falling people and apples. This is why a person's or apple's mass does not affect their acceleration, which is 9.8 ms^-2 or 32 feet/sec^2 on the surface.

At the very middle, a hypothetical point of no size, there is no net force or acceleration in any direction.

A pulling effect (I believe as shown by my proof that gravity is pushing, not pulling!) would depend entirely upon the difficult physical problem of whether or not two opposing vectors cancel each other out, or whether the net effect simply becomes undetectable by some ways of measurement.

Dr Arnold Lynch PhD and David A. Chalmers BSc did some research on examples of "field cancellation" problems. Dr Lynch points out that where you get radio wave interference, you can find points where there is zero measurable field strength, although clearly the energy does not vanish. Another example is electromagnetic gamma ray radiation. It has a net field of zero, because its positive and negative fields along the wave oscillation exactly balance. Therefore, as a whole it is uncharged. However, you can detect gamma rays and they deliver energy. Dr Lynch worked on the problems of microwave radiation interference for British Telecom in the 1980s and his work is published in Proc. IEE. Standing waves, where reciprocating energy is passing through itself in bouncing around, creates null points called "nodes". Energy passes through these.

David Chalmers worked with lasers on the problem of energy conservation in Young's double slit experiment. The problem is that when you measure the total energy on the screen in the double slit experiment, and compare it to energy conservation in the water tank double slit experiment as Young did, you find an anomaly. Interference can mean that light arriving out of phase cancels to produce dark fringes, but the energy is still there in the maths! In other words, equal light arrives on the bright and dark areas in the double slit experiment, but the dark areas are dark because the electromagnetic fields of the light rays cancel out. At least, that is what one version of the mathematical energy conservation equation has us believe. It is probably more complex.

If two vectors cancel, that may mean either that there is nothing at all, or that there is something still, yet what remains has no net result. If however you take the case of a person, then you are not dealing with an infidesimal point at the centre of the earth. In that case, you need to make detailed calculations for the forces to the arms and legs. However, this whole argument is a leap away from the basic issue of the cause of gravity, which needs to be resolved.

Nigel I notice you have not addresed the surface area issue, the one meter square, by one millimeter thick, piece of steel that I should be able to turn on it's edge and find a reduction in gravitationally accelerated resultant pressure (weight) that is of such a magnitude that I would be required to laminate (sandwich together) 999 other pieces of the same size sheet of steel before it would have the "edge on" same/identical surface area, as to generate the same readings, on a scale, as when I have ONE piece, laying flat. (your 'Push' force from space)

If one piece of that steel weighted in at one kilo, then by turning it on its' side I should be able to add 999 more pieces of that steel, sandwiched, and then still get a 'one kilo' reading on the scale, as that represents the same surface area. (rather then the 1,000 kilo weight both of us know it would actually weight)

Sheilding from the Earth cannot compensate for that, never mind the simplicity that all weight is a result of gravitational ativity, proving that is as simple as taking a sixty kilo weight here on the earth, and weighing it on the moon, where it will now weight in at ten kilos.

EDIT the math I was off by a factor of ten, one extra decimal point. plus some of the wording, OYE! what a time

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by icespeed
sorry nigel, yell at me if this is really obvious or already been answered.

you analogised your theory to the wind rushing the other way when someone walks down a corridor, or air rushing to fill a suitcase that's been opened.
so that's like saying spacetime rushes past the accelerating galaxies to provide pressure that we feel as gravity.
so... where does all the spacetime from beyond the accelerating galaxies come from?

Physical dielectric of the vacuum or fabric of the space-time continuum, with four properties: a magnetic field permeability, an electric field permittivity, a electromagnetic wave impedance (377 ohms), and an electromagnetic velocity (300 Mm/s).

This has already been answered by me.

1. This applies to the existing expanding big bang universe independently of gravity being the result of the expansion. The establishment position of all except Einstein (who differentiates in his inaugural lecture at Leyden University in 1920) is to lump volume and fabric of space together, creating a convenient confusion from which to argue that no one can ever understand anything, and therefore that physics is stable and not liable to undergo any further revolution, but just to encounter new mathematical knots.

2. Nuclear explosions in space, such as the American Starfish test of 1.4 Mt at 400 km altitude (well into space) on 9 July 1962, did not magically create space. The space already existed around them. There is no reason to treat the big bang any differently from a nuclear explosion in space, except for the detail of the energy release (scale up to 10^55 megatons, but start off with energy instead of atomic matter as in nuclear bombs and supernovae).

3. Some conventional books, such as Marcus Chown's (a former New Scientist magazine employee) grandly promoted "Afterglow of Creation" propagate the myth that explosions cannot occur in space because there is no air and that the big bang was therefore not an explosion. I have no sympathy with that sort of waffle.

4. Robert Kennedy said that (I think) 5% of the public is against everything all of the time, and they are the only ones who speak up. So I will take up your offer to yell at you: the fabric of space is a proven fact. The mathematical proof shows what happens when you move in it. Critics who try to score points by raising existing problems in science do not detract from the proof.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel I notice you have not addresed the surface area issue, the one meter square, by one millimeter thick, piece of steel that I should be able to turn on it's edge and find a reduction in gravitationally accelerated resultant pressure (weight) that is of such a magnitude that I would be required to laminate (sandwich together) 999 other pieces of the same size sheet of steel before it would have the "edge on" same/identical surface area, as to generate the same readings, on a scale, as when I have ONE piece, laying flat. (your 'Push' force from space)

If one piece of that steel weighted in at one kilo, then by turning it on its' side I should be able to add 999 more pieces of that steel, sandwiched, and then still get a 'one kilo' reading on the scale, as that represents the same surface area. (rather then the 1,000 kilo weight both of us know it would actually weight)

Sheilding from the Earth cannot compensate for that, never mind the simplicity that all weight is a result of gravitational ativity, proving that is as simple as taking a sixty kilo weight here on the earth, and weighing it on the moon, where it will now weight in at ten kilos.

EDIT the math I was off by a factor of ten, one extra decimal point. plus some of the wording, OYE! what a time

Wrong. Your argument is that gravity only affects surface area, not subatomic particles. If this were so, your weight would indeed be greater lying down than standing up, and the same for your piece of steel.

The answer is that the total effect of gravity is that on each subatomic particle in you or your steel, added together. Not the overall shape. The atomic particles are extremely small in comparison to the atomic volumes they occupy.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

To address Parsons:

You are acting as if this center point is the source of gravity. Cancel it out and suddenly there is no more gravity at all. All the gravity on Earth is pulling it downward to this point. This creates a pressure as well, which can and does exist at this point. The pressure will not cause the Earth to explode because, as stated, if you move in any direction out of the center of gravity, the imbalance in forces that result cause an equal reaction. It is not that gravity does not exist at the center, it is that the sum of all forces is zero at this point. That is, it is in equillibrium. To think of it in a relativistic sense, the center of gravity is at the bottom of the gravity well (a 2 dimensional spacetime such as a rubber sheet isn't too helpful when picturing this, but imagine the bottom half of a ball under the bottom of the curve). At this bottom of the well, there is no resulting force either way.

As for a pushing gravity caused by pressure and all, it still does not explain how it bends light, after all as I stated many a times, light is not subject to be acted upon by pressure like this because it has no real mass to have a force imparted on. It obeys the geometry of spacetime. Also, how would this explain orbits as well? Should not at some point any orbiting system reach a state in which it becomes unstable? And what about the L points in any orbital system? The two points lying ahead and behind the orbit of one body are not shielded by any mass in a way that will create what it does.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets put it this way, Newton DID NOT have the PROOF of the FACT that the center of the Earth is a steel ball!

Which brings us to a simple dilemma, (for all of you) as we have found that we have a solid (greater denstiy) sitting inside, at the center of, a massive amount of liquid (lessor density) and all of you trying to tell me that there is less gravity there, then above it, where we find the liquid of lessor density.

So how do you achieve a greater density, in a space of less gravity, when all pressurizations, other then mechanical, are as a result of gravity?

P.S. Simply put, Newton was wrong!

This has been answered already THREE times, it is because PRESSURE builds up from the surface to the center, it accumulates the forces of gravity on all matter outside the center, so the pressure is to be expected highest in the center. But this built up of pressure is not linear, cause the force of gravity itself is not constant, but drops down to zero near the center.

Is this so difficult to understand?

 

[heusdens]

This proof of Newton thing (gravity is zero at the center of mass) is effectively off-topic, but it was necessary here, cause Mr. Parson does not understand Newton's law of gravity, and effectiviely does not understand gravity at all.

The topic is however if gravity is to be denoted as a force that acts between all masses as an attractive force, or if all the non-mass (the "fabric of space") presses on all massive objects, and that the same laws of gravity as a nett-attracting force are just the result from the shielding effect.

What I said about this, is that we can simply interchange mass and it's effect (curvature of space), as being one in the same. Instead we could also say curvature of space causes mass. They are the same, but complementary views.

Same for the "causes" of gravity, we can either denote it as masses attracting each other, or masses that shield other masses from pressure of non-mass (everything that "surrounds" matter).

This is however not to claim a "different cause" or a cause at all for gravity, but it is just modelling things complementary, in the same way as we can say that "matter causes curved spacetime" and "curved spacetime causes mass" are equal, but complementary descriptions.

All we can know and ever will know, is the nett forces that gravity casues as can be measured, and the laws that predict the resulting behaviour of gravity (Newton, Einstein).

Wether you "see" gravity as a result from mass atracting mass, or mass shielding mass from non-mass pressure, is really equal.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HeusdensThis has been answered already THREE times, it is because PRESSURE builds up from the surface to the center, it accumulates the forces of gravity on all matter outside the center, so the pressure is to be expected highest in the center. But this built up of pressure is not linear, cause the force of gravity itself is not constant, but drops down to zero near the center.

This proof of Newton thing (gravity is zero at the center of mass) is effectively off-topic, but it was necessary here, cause Mr. Parson does not understand Newton's law of gravity, and effectiviely does not understand gravity at all.

Heusdens, you are comical, at best.

If it followed what you are telling heusdens it would have gravitationally attracted the huge steel ball in the center, out to the sides, that you are telling all of us has the greater gravitational attraction!

Hence heusdens you would have a hollow centered earth/planet.

Apparently heusdens you have completely missed that I told you that Newton himself DID NOT KNOW that that giant steel ball was in the center of the earth.

Had he known that, had that evidence, he too would probably have "canned" the shell game explanation for the reality, as portrayed by the earth, as he was a brilliant man.

That shell game explanation was the only alternative he had, he had NOT the evidence of the greater density of matter that lies at the center of the planet. Hence his choice was limited as he had to go with what he could prove, and he was clearly absent of the needed evidence, clearly NOT HIS FAULT!

I too, would have gone with the 'shell game', had I not had the evidence that proves otherwise.

BTW Heusdens, the rest of your "nonsensical" post, above, proves that it is really you who hasn't the grasp of the subject matter.

He warps a void, bends a vacuum, doesn't ever grasp that gravity is what causes all the pressurizations of mass, other then mechanical.

Nigel, even if it was subatomic, which is NOT what you paper states, as you paper clearly uses the surface area of spheres to establish the pressurizations according to size, the 'edge on' would none the less change the weight reading that would be given, as the matter would shield the subatomic particles from your gravitational force from above, of from the 'shielding' you claim the planet has, which, in order to counteract gravity, would NEED work on surface area, as well.

I suspect you owe the editor(s) of the "Letters of the Physical Review", an apology, but I doubt that you have the, well, whatever, to do it.

Heusdens, please post again, you too Brad_A23, I need the laugh!

(Forgive me, cause that is rude of me!)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

An honest error (?)

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Nigel, if your spatial pressurization, as per surface area worked, then I could take a 1 square meter piece of material, 1 mm thick, and find a ten fold difference, in it's weight, as per gravities pressurization on it, simply by standing it on it's edge, as opposed to laying it flat.

Sorry to tell you, it doesn't work that way, and that, too, is provable!

What is in red ,above ,is my error, as the difference would be 1000 x's, not simply 'ten fold'

EDIT Removing a [/b] switch

 

[Brad_Ad23]

It doesn't matter what is in the Earth's core, its the same for any object. At the center of gravity of that object, one experiences no net gravitational acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law when you talk about pressure, since that is merely F/A (force over area). Every force has an equal and opposite reaction, hence, as this force is 'pushing' upwards, at the same time it is experiencing a downward force as well, from gravity and the rest of the mass on top of it, which does what folks? It allows what we have been saying to be true, as well as Newton's proof. Believe me when I say, over the centuries, where Newton wrong, it would have been found by someone of far greater caliber than you Parsons. No offense, but that is the truth. A professional would indeed have discovered this to not be true.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It doesn't matter what is in the Earth's core, its the same for any object. At the center of gravity of that object, one experiences no net gravitational acceleration. Please remember Newton's 3rd law when you talk about pressure, since that is merely F/A (force over area). Every force has an equal and opposite reaction, hence, as this force is 'pushing' upwards, at the same time it is experiencing a downward force as well, from gravity and the rest of the mass on top of it, which does what folks? It allows what we have been saying to be true, as well as Newton's proof. Believe me when I say, over the centuries, where Newton wrong, it would have been found by someone of far greater caliber than you Parsons. No offense, but that is the truth. A professional would indeed have discovered this to not be true.

Wrong. Newton is not so bright. If you read my analysis on the last page, the Newton "proof" that there is no net force uses the inverse square law, which only applies to static objects. With moving electrons, etc, you have to consider not the inverse-square but just the plain inverse of distance [gravitational work energy E = Fd = (mMG/d^2)d = mMG/d]. Because Newton's geometric argument requires gravity to be proportional to the inverse square of distance for forces to cancel inside the earth, he is wrong for gravitational potential energy.

On the theme of Newton's errors, you could read up on how he fiddled his equation for the speed of sound to give the already-known experimental answer, about a century before it was discovered that his equation was wrong because he had assumed a sound wave to be isothermal when in fact it is adiabatic, compressing and heating the air as it passes.

Newton's approach to the whole of physics was to apply dimensional analysis to grab as many equations under his great name as he possibly could as quickly as possible, then fiddle results of experiments to prove them. Hooke proved that he discovered the inverse-square law of gravity before Newton. Newton then produced an undated manuscript which he claimed he wrote before Hooke. All these genuses squabbled over finding glory in equations. (I will spare you the story of Newton versus Liebniz on the discovery of the calculus.)

The idea of hero worship is bad not only because these people were crazy, arrogant, religious freaks (Newton had a chest full of papers he wrote on alchemy and interpretation of the Book of Revelation), but these people stand in the way of progress today even though they have died.

In quantum mechanics, you find Niels Bohr's Correspondence Principle and Complementarity Principle - known as the Copenhagen doctrine - doing the same thing.

The acceleration of gravity was discovered by Galileo, who fiddled his experimental results on rolling canon balls, because his results omit the rotational kinetic energy of the balls! You can prove from his data that he fiddled it. The same goes for Newton and sound speed, for Maxwell and light speed (Maxwell's January 1862 paper contains an error in elasticity theory, giving only 41% of the speed of light, but he conveniently gets the right already-known answer using the wrong working), and so on.

Of course, this is sour grapes coming from me. I'm pointing out these facts because I have a chip on my shoulder at not being recognised for a genius. Actually, I'm a moron. Now will you listen? No, I think not.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by heusdens
This proof of Newton thing...

What I said about this, is that we can simply interchange mass and it's effect (curvature of space), as being one in the same. Instead we could also say curvature of space causes mass. They are the same, but complementary views.

Same for the "causes" of gravity, we can either denote it as masses attracting each other, or masses that shield other masses from pressure of non-mass (everything that "surrounds" matter)...

All we can know and ever will know, is the nett forces that gravity casues as can be measured, and the laws that predict the resulting behaviour of gravity (Newton, Einstein).

Wether you "see" gravity as a result from mass atracting mass, or mass shielding mass from non-mass pressure, is really equal.

Wrong. You claim that my proof of the cause of gravity is recognised as being equivalent to Newton's explanation, although no one will "ever" know which is right.

My proof predicts that the density of the universe is (3/4) times the square of the Hubble constant, divided by the product of pi and the gravitational constant. Alternatively, you get the gravitational constant from the others.

Newton and Einstein at best only predict half this density. NASA is supposed to be making efforts to send up satellites to get the Hubble constant and density known properly, by observing gas clouds and variable stars, etc. When this data is available, it may confirm either Newton and Einstein, or moron. If it confirms moron (me) then it will be possible to give an absolute cause of gravity.

However, we do not have to wait for NASA. A proof does something called proving a fact. Newton does not have a proof that the equation he got, like Hooke, from combining Galileo's empirical unexplained gravity equation and Kepler's empirical unexplained third law, is the cause for gravity. All he says is that it describes gravity. If a "law" is like a photograph of a girl; the photograph is not the girl it is just a piece of paper, and it is not the cause of the girl either. The whole business of taking causes to equations which are just geometric expressions of curves from data plotted on graphs, is absurd. Einstein does it better, by considering the errors Newton included of gravitational energy and instantaneous action at a distance, and correcting them mathematically. However, Einstein's equation looks even more obscure than Newton's and is certainly misunderstood by many people as being a cause of gravity when it is nothing of the sort.

Another proof of my cause is that, as the paper says, it explains why the most distant supernovas are not being slowed down by attraction by the gravity within the universe. The explanation of gravity being the inward push from surrounding expansion clearly shows that the outermost objects in the big bang will not receive an inward push from beyond, and will therefore not be slowed down by gravity. So there is plenty to distinguish and prove my theory from Newton's magical mathematics "law of nature" fiddle.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons


Nigel, even if it was subatomic, which is NOT what you paper states, as you paper clearly uses the surface area of spheres to establish the pressurizations according to size, the 'edge on' would none the less change the weight reading that would be given, as the matter would shield the subatomic particles from your gravitational force from above, of from the 'shielding' you claim the planet has, which, in order to counteract gravity, would NEED work on surface area, as well.

Wrong. Matter is subatomic in nature, I suggest you read more closely the preamble in either the internet or printed article. But even if I had not said that matter is composed of subatomic particles, that would not change anything. The paper is about gravity, and atomic physics is well established. I do not need to go into that, although I do mention in in the internet version and I give the force mechanism of the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force in the printed article.

On your area problems, you are treating the area of a person and the area of the earth. To prove the cause of gravity, you take just one thing, preferably simple, say an electron. You then work out the gravitational acceleration towards it resulting from the inward push of space from the all-round universe, in reaction to the big bang.

Hence, the cross-sectional area you need to consider for shielding is that for just one particle. If you have two particles, you double the effect. Hence, gravity is proportional to mass. Mass is simply the effect of space by inertia against space and gravity. The beauty of my proof is that the absolute cross-sections are not needed to calculate gravity. The maths by passes the problem, since other factors cancel.

It was a surprise to find that, because I was ready to hit a snag with nuclear cross-sectional areas. Experiments in nuclear physics show that nuclear cross-sectional areas appear to depend on the speed and energy of the particle you use to probe the nucleus. However, this result is due to interference between the frequency of the particle's wave and the frequency of oscillation of the nucleus. If I had needed to put measured cross-sections into the equations, it would have been a messy business. Fortunately, it worked out better.

Cumulative shielding will be insignificant as my proof step 13 (I think from memory) shows that to stop the dielectric push of the entire universe, you need an exactly equal mass of matter. So you would need to have the Earth the mass of the universe to completely shield the inward directed dielectric push. Since the Earth's mass is very much smaller, the cumulative shielding is insignificant. Therefore, you can calculate gravity by adding up the number of particles without worrying about whether they are beside one another or behind one another. The effective cross-sectional area is small enough to make the probability of two particles being directly behind one another almost insignificant. However, it is a good point to raise.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel I will address your responce when I have the chance, soon no doubt.

2003-05-26 Open the attachment 'foist'So sorry, see note at bottom, file's too big to attach , please...

So heusdens, in figure # 1 we have two bodies being gravitationally attracted to each other, in Fig # 2 we see the result of the two bodies being "joined at the hip", so to speak, once the gravitational attractions have finished their work and the two bodies are stuck together, gravitationally.

Please note that if a third body is introduced, in fig # 2, then the attraction will be towards the combined weights of the two bodies, not a subducted weighting. If each of those spheres weighed in at x kilos each, when a third body of y kilos is introduced, the gravitational attraction from the two conjoined bodies will be as if were 2x kilos attracting y kilos.

In Fig # 3 we have the Shell game, The volume of the spheres is calculable (I'm rounding the numbers) with the volume of sphere r = 2 being, as per 4/3 pi r³, ~33 cu x's, the complete sphere at r = 3 being ~ 113 cu x's, and the complete sphere at r = 4 being ~268 cu x's.

(This is a given that they are NOT at any kind of pressure, and the actually volume is written as cubic x's as I am not needing to assign any particular value to it)


So @ r =2 = 33 = green sphere
@ r =3 = 113 = red sphere and green sphere, therefor the red shell volume is (r=2)-(r=3) = 80 cu x's
@ r =4 = 268 = blue sphere and red sphere and green sphere, therefore the red shells volume is (r=2)-(r=3)-(r=4) = 122 cu x's

Hence the shells r = 2 volume is 33 cu x's, the shell r = 3 volume is 80 cu x's, and the shell r = 4 volume is 122 cu x's

So this applies to figure # 3 as from what you are telling the volume of r = 4 is greater then the volume of r = 3 combined with r = 2, (r = 4 = 122 and (r = 3 + r = 2 ) = 113) such that the gravitational power of the shell r = 4 should be attractive enough to attract all of the matter out of shell r = 2, and compress it in shell r = 3!
(remember I told you, it WOULD BE HOLLOW!)

Simple problem, your center of gravity is now the RED line that represents the circumference of r = 3, as draw in with that large red X that is actually the arrowheads of the two vectors that are the orange lines that point towards, what you are telling us all is, the NEW center of gravity!

Funny, but measurements tell us that the center of gravity of the Earth, that is acted upon by stellar objects, like the Moon, the Sun, etc. act as if the center of the Earth was/is the center of the planet, not some shell halfway between the middle and the outside.

Never mind that one, the reality is that if the gravitational attraction was where you seem to wish it to be, then that large steel ball that is the center of the Earth would be GRAVITATIONALLY ATTRACTED towards that RED CIRCUFERENTIAL SHELL that is R = 3, it would definitely NOT stay at the center of the planet, as it is a mass, therefore, it too has gravitational ability and should be, in your scenario, attracted towards the center of gravity which is the red line in this fig # 3.

Please note, IT IS NOT and that is in defiance of what you state, supports completely what I am stateing, and should finish off completely this delightful argument of yours, which is the wrong answer!

As I stated before, if Newton had had the evidence, he probably would have told the proponent of the 'shell game' to take a HIKE, as he too would have been able to prove that gravity acted all the way throught to the center of the planet, pressurizing it right to the CORE.

So, contrary to what the movie taught all of you, if you were to travel towards the center of the planet, the gravity there would pin you to the floor with such force as that you would not be able to stand up, that is, of course, if it didn't squeeeeeeeeze all of the blood out of your body first!

Makes the movie an "Instant Classic", as it is a wrongful portrayal of the reality of gravities activities, so get it today on DVD, or video cassette...yadda, yadda, yadda, insert commercal "here" (sorry greg. a 'non commercial' site right? so get the rest on PF 2.0 only $20.00 from Greg Bernhardt, "Cheap Cheeep" said the Robin!)

Awwww the file won't attach too big, I'll find another way to show you, just wait a little bit please

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel your eq # 4

2. Spherical surface area, Ar = 4 p r2

uses the surface area to compensate for the lack of objective use of actual mass calculation.

So sorry, but surface area cannot be the "Cause of Gravity" it's MO, as it very simply is very provable that it is not!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Gravitational force (inverse square) and gravitational energy are TWO different entities. It is best to not confuse the two. One is measured in Newtons (units of force) the other in Joules (units of energy)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If any of you would like the BMP that I have, please PM me with an e-mail address and I will send it to you 'lickety split'! (sorta, limited access sometimes, sooooo)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Gravitational force (inverse square) and gravitational energy are TWO different entities. It is best to not confuse the two. One is measured in Newtons (units of force) the other in Joules (units of energy)

So you are saying that it would be impossible to measure the same thing two different ways, hence making a slight mistake in figuring things out??

Got you right?

The BMP is a bitmap draw in Mspaint, and goes along with the explanation on the preceeding page, colourfull too!


Thanks, bye for now...

(Hi Jean, remember me? soon Jean, soon...like NOW!)

 

[Brad_Ad23]

No you don't. They are not the same thing. Force and energy are two different things altogether. They are related sure, but they are by no stretch of any physics imagination the same thing at all. Treat them as such, and yes, you will make a big mistake in calculations.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Heusdens, you are comical, at best.

Let us just assume that according to the rest of us, who DO understand gravity, you are comical, not me.

If it followed what you are telling heusdens it would have gravitationally attracted the huge steel ball in the center, out to the sides, that you are telling all of us has the greater gravitational attraction!

Hence heusdens you would have a hollow centered earth/planet.

Either you can't read, or you can't think, or both, cause this argument does NOT follow my line of thought.
The force of gravity ALWAYS is directed towards the center, but from a straight line from the surface to the center, this force of gravity will go slowly drop down.
Hence all matter will be atracted towars the center, although deep down, this force is less then at the surface. Nevertheless, all the mass above a certain point, becuase it is attracted towards the center, will accumulate into pressure, and that is why pressure, when going down from the surface to the center, will gradually built up, and also cause matter deeper down to be more condensed, and hence heavier then at the surface.

Your statement that erath would be hollow, COMPLETELY missed the point, and simply means you don't understand anything about gravity.

Apparently heusdens you have completely missed that I told you that Newton himself DID NOT KNOW that that giant steel ball was in the center of the earth.

This is due to the lack of observational methods at the time, and is besides the argument.

Anyway, since you did not even understand the proof of Newton, because you completely misjudge what it means (it certainly does not follow from Newtons's proof that the Earth is hollow), we just keep laughing because of the stupidity of your posts!

Keep sending them!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Heusdens

Hence all matter will be atracted towars the center, although deep down, this force is less then at the surface. Nevertheless, all the mass above a certain point, becuase it is attracted towards the center, will accumulate into pressure, and that is why pressure, when going down from the surface to the center, will gradually built up, and also cause matter deeper down to be more condensed, and hence heavier then at the surface.

heusdens you have successfully just proven you can't follow reality, cause according to your (il)logic you have heavier matter, a solid steel ball, sitting in a lighter matter, the fluid above it, and you say that there is less gravity holding it there.

Nevermind you now tell me that all of the mass is atracted towards the center, while in your previous posts you stated it was attracted to the greater gravitational point which was above it.

Talk about self-contradiction.

Please explain how pressure is developed, in absence of any gravitational force, and not mechanical pressure.

Remember, pressure is as a result of weight, and ALL weight is as a result of gravities activities, so how do you have pressure in absence of gravity inducing a weight into/upon the matter?

(good laugh for ya?)

EDIT a switch

 

[Brad_Ad23]

heusdens why do I get the impression that this is a futile argument?

Ok Parsons, listen up carefully. The gravitational force is directed downwards. To the center of gravity. At this point, the center of gravity, this is where all the little vectors of force meet up. At this point, there is no attraction, since there is no distance to go to get to the center of gravity. But, what else is going on? Hmm, well we have all this weight above the point. Yeah, that is directed downward as well. But what else is going on? We have pressure. Yep, Force divided by area. What else? As you go down deeper, you get more pressure, because there is more weight above you. Check. So anything else? Well, it would appear that if gravity's strength decreases, should there not be less pressure? Nope. The pressure exerted on any region down there, is a result of the weight above it. Not due to the gravitational force at that depth. It is also balanced as per the 3rd law of motion--An equal, but opposite, reaction for every action. The pressure from above pushes down, and the matter being acted upon pushes back with equal force.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel your eq # 4



uses the surface area to compensate for the lack of objective use of actual mass calculation.

So sorry, but surface area cannot be the "Cause of Gravity" it's MO, as it very simply is very provable that it is not!

I am pushed down because the Earth shields me on one side only. To work out how much shielding there is, I can assume that there is a shield at a distance downwards equal to 1 Earth radius which is doing the shielding. I then need to work out the net push, which is the uncancelled effect pressing me down from above, due to the space pressure in response to the big bang.

One way of doing that is to consider the relative fraction of the total spherical area around me which is being effectively shielded.

The presence of geometry, such as areas and volumes, in the paper is explained. If you don't take the time to even read it, you are behaving like Dr Karl Ziemelis, physical sciences editor of Nature. Sorry for this insult, but you asked for it.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel it's a compliment that you would compare me to him.

Brad you apparently think weight is some kind of independant force, separate from gravity, as apparently you cannot seem to comprehend that it is gravity that causes anything and everything to have weight.

Simple proof, go to the moon and weight it there, 1/6^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.