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

[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.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't need to, as you are using a system that doesn't apply to the reality as you keep assuming that you can simply ignore the fact of all of that mass that the waves of gravity would need to pass through, to get to each other, to cancel.

only works in the math department, NOT in the reality of the measured physical planet, as proven by the large steel ball known to be at it's center.

The "steel balll at the center" is neither a proof for your ideas nor a disproof of the fact that at this center, the force of gravity, or the acceleration of gravity, is zero.

And "gravitation waves" were never observed. Besides, it is a property of waves that they can cancel, as proved by interference of light.

That was why I had previously brought up the 'Lagrange' point thing, to demonstrate what happens to a mass that is in a place where G = zero, it is pulled towards the nearest thing that has G energy/force, and away from the zero G point!

Just because you can mathematically cancel out all of the factors on a sheet of paper, does not prove that the planet behaves that way, especially when, in that paper proof, you are functioning in a manner that ignores completely the fact that the mass is full, of mass, not some hollow, partially empty shell, that you have drawn, on a sheet of paper.

BTW, I can, by God's Grace, imagine lots of things, that does not make them real, just imagined. This is supposed to be a discourse on the reality of it, not the imagined of it.

Yeah. So when do you srart digging that hole! We are just waiting for you to come up with some proof!

Btw. What is this G = 0 thing? G is the gravity constant, which is never and nowhere zero. Perhaps you mean g, the gravitational acceleration?

Mass is full of mass... hmmmmmmm Well that explain what mass is, isn't it?

It refers to what you are also. You are full of yourself!

 

[heusdens]

Mr Parson, please go on with your weird and revolutionary ideas.
It really is ammusing to all of us. Such fun!

Perhaps instead of criticizing mathematics and physics ideas, better try and learn to understand them!

 

[yogi]

The formulation derived by Nigel is idential to Friedmann's equation except for a factor of 2 - this does not prove that gravity is caused by expansion - it is a relationship between the deceleration of the universe due to the retarding effect of the totality of cosmic matter. Friedman's equation for critical density
[rho = 3H^2/8pi(G)] is the same. I would agree however that gravity is a consequence of expansion - I derived an identical formulation about 10 years ago based upon expansion. This was published on the net for some time under the name "Cosmodynamics"

 

[heusdens]

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

There is something wrong with this explenation. The Big Bang was not like a material explosion (matter speeding away from a precise location at varying speeds) in pre-existing space. Actually the Big Bang is the expansion of spacetime itself.

Originally posted by Nigel
Proof of the cause of gravity as the effect of the Hubble expansion on the fabric of space. The outward motion of matter is balanced by inward directed fabric of space, maintaining a full volume, just as air moves into a suitcase when you take clothes out of it. The pressure towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by the shielding of the planet Earth below us.

The Hubble expansion is caused by gravity. How can there be Hubble expansion without gravity?
Now if what you say is true, then while gravity still causes Hubble expansion, now the Hubble expansion causes gravity.

Your argumentation is fully circular. So, I don't expect that you found the cause of gravity, you only found a different way of expressing how this force works.

 

[yogi]

Huesdens - it isn't really necessary to involve the early universe in the mathematics of Nigel - simply consider the present state of the universe as a spherically symmetrical expansion - take the volume and differentiate twice - this gives you the volumetric acceleration (8piRc^2) - then make a volume to surface transformation using the divergence theorem (this simplifies to dividing by 4piR^2 for a sphere) - so the effective isotropic acceleration is 2c^2/R - from here you can get to Nigels result. Note that Nigels formulation predicts that G varies with time - When I first arrived at this result some years ago it bothered me because the experiments show G to be constant - but the problem is that all the experiments are measuring the MG product - not G alone - that is they measure orbital consistency of satellites over a period of years.

 

[heusdens]

yogi -- I hope you see the point of my argument... The theory of Nigel is based on the Hubble expansion. The theory states that this expansion can explain the cause of gravity. However, the Hubble expansion itself is an effect of gravity. So, we have gravity, causing Hubble expansion, and Hubble expansion then causes gravity.
How can something be it's own cause?

 

[yogi]

Agreed heusdens - you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps - I think the fallacy is in the assumption that gravity is the cause of expansion - if you use the zero energy (null) model of the universe first advanced by Ed Tyrol some years ago, expansion can be thought of in terms of the dynamic necessary to balance the negative potential energy with Kinetic energy - in which case the universe must have critical density. Accordingly, if expansion is a consequence of energy considerations - then the assumption re gravitational cause is erroneous. In the equations of Freidmann gravity comes in as a retarding influence - not a source of expansion. Given this caveat, the equations relating the cause of gravity to expansion make a lot of sense - recall the units of G (Vol acceleration per unit mass). I would disagree with the pressure analogy however - and the shielding idea of matter - it is much more logical to simply consider gravity as opposite side of the F=ma coin - in the case of a mass accelerated with respect to space - we get an inertial force - in the case of space accelerated relative to a mass - we also get an inertial force - but since the acceleration of space is so small, we need a lot of mass to get much of an effect. This also explains why gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical (Einstein's equivalence) and it comports with Einsteins postulate that we would get the same force effect if the universe were accelerated with respect to a hunk of matter as we would get if the matter were accelerated relative to the universe

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

03/06/2003

So heusdens, and Brad_AD23, just checked a reference source and found a reference to the fact of the outer (liquid) cores convection of heat by "material transportation", simple words, the outer molten core of the planet convects heat towards the mantle shell, above it, because, hotter, therefore lighter, materials rises towards the mantle.

It would also follow that heavier/ denser, cooler, materials, fall back towards the inner, solid core, and this evidence is in complete contradiction to the "theoretic" that you have attempted to defend.

If the gravitational acceleration was cancelled, as you seem to wish to tell me it is, then the site of the highest gravitational attraction, is the mantle to inner core boundary layer.

If your postulate was in fact correct, then the heavier materials would flow upwards from the inner core/outer core regions, towards the mantle, and the lighter, therefore less gravitationally acted upon, materials, would flow downwards, towards the site of lesser gravitational attraction, towards the inner core.

This is NOT what the physical evidence tells us is happening. The PHYSICAL EVIDENCE tells us that the hotter/lighter materials travel up towards the mantle, and the heavier/cooler materials flow down towards the inner core.


So the reason why I keep at this, in this manner, is simple enough, the reasoning that you have been trying to convince me, is working, in the earth, goes like this, mathematically.

Your first statement is that all of the mass of the Earth contributes to the resultant measure of the G force at the surface...mathematically you are doing this...

Eq # 1 (2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2) = 20

Then you want to tell me that you have self cancellation, within the Earth itself...which is this math

Eq # 2 (2 + 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2) = 20

Please note, the result of the second line is, according to your statements, still 20! as you would wish me to follow (somehow) that you can 'self cancel' a vast amount of the mass's contribution to the energy that is seen as gravitational attraction, and still have the same resultant measurement of the force of attraction that is the 'Earth Normal' G force.

That is a sophist's fallacy!

Heusdens, it surprises me not that you would recommend that I return to preschool, as apparently, you being the evidence of a 'recent graduate' of such an institution, demonstrate clearly the need for someone to go there and explain to the people, who taught you, that mathematics simply does not work that way .

So the choice is clear enough, either it is the Eq. # 1, Or the Eq # 2 (if you think it's both, well, see the statement emboldened just above)

If # 1 then the force of gravity goes all the way to the center of the planet and DOES NOT self cancel, the measure of G, at the core, is NOT at zero! (as you would want me to believe)

That one is clearly my choice, and I would add that the method of measurement of the Force of gravitational attraction going in would be 1/ square root of r

If it is # 2, then, there is/are several problems, one being the fact that the amount of mass that is generating the surface measure of the acceleration due to G, is way off, and the amount of mass that the planet contains, needs be way higher then what is currently "known".

And, that problem includes the problems of the density, as now you need to compress an enormous amount of mass, into a smaller space, to effect that "G" reading.

Further to that problem, in the convection problem, stated at the outset of this piece.

Further to that problem, comes this problem, the depth v pressure readings that do NOT concord with the facts of the gravitational attraction.

It cannot be both statements eq #1 and eq # 2, not a chance!

In a graphic of the pressure v gravity that I have been looking at, the (acceleration due to) gravity actually increases, from Earth 'Normal', to ~11 m per s^-2, at a depth of ~1800 mi/3000 km, then, (apparently) drops off to "zero" as it goes towards the center.

But the pressure does a relatively steady climb, all the way down, continuing to climb, past the above indicated depth,without any method of pressurization.

Case you haven't grasped it yet, matter/mass is compressible, by gravitational activity, as is very clearly demonstrated by large, Stellar objects, and by Black Holes.

How you develop that kind of pressure, 3 to 4 mbars, without any method of pressurization, (as in your scenario, gravity has stopped accelerating everything/anything) is simply beyond me, and beyond you too, (I suspect) just that, I sincerely doubt that you will admit to that.

So, it is nice, (I suppose) that you tell me that I can lead a revolution in Science, just that, unbeknownst to you, that has been going on, for some time now, so I never needed, nor sought, you permission, for that endeavor. (Clearly, you were "out of the loop", and, God willing, will remain so!)

As for the rest, well, clearly, your "pressed" postulate has enough holes in it, to drive a truck through it, (I would know, I used to do that, drive trucks, big ones!) so I would respectfully suggest that you return to your vector map, and realize that, just because you can cancel out the two "equal and opposite vectors" that arise from two cars driving towards each other, at equal speeds and opposing directions, does not mean that they will not crash together with zero force.

(And please, don't go out and test that, cause the thing that probably gets "zeroed" in that scene, is the driver!)


PS If you would bother to do the calculation, you would find that, if you employ 1/square root of r as the manner of measure of Gravitational acceleration towards the center, you will find that the increasing gravitational activity, matches the pressure gradient, quite well!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Parsons you STILL don't get it. What we say accords exactly with stuff falling. We ARE NOT saying gravity simply vanishes. We are saying that the vectors for gravitational force cancel out exactly at the Earth's center of gravity. There is a world of difference between saying "gravity ceases to exist and gravitational vectors cancel out."

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Mr. Parsons you STILL don't get it. What we say accords exactly with stuff falling. We ARE NOT saying gravity simply vanishes. We are saying that the vectors for gravitational force cancel out exactly at the Earth's center of gravity. There is a world of difference between saying "gravity ceases to exist and gravitational vectors cancel out."

In several of the postings herein you have adamantly and repetitively told me that the gravity at the center is zero, aside from that, I already know that you are simply following current theory, as the site I spoke of, has the exact same thing, in it's graph of pressure v gravity.

Between the two of you, it is like having a "dog on my leg", not even cognizant enough to know that it's the wrong species!

What you have stated does NOT accord with suff falling, as clearly the gravity is higher, according to what you have both been shoving on me, above the center, Hence it could do nothing but "fall up", and it doesn't!

Point closed, end of any further use of my leg! (get it?)

PS. current theory is wrong, big deal, live with it, cause all it really changes is your minds, nothing else! (Oh and BTW, just read a really good article on gravitational collapse, neutron stars, black holes, etc, and they all would not function that way if the gravity fell to zero at the center of the masses there. Heck the pegged a neutron stars density a 10E14 to 10E15 times the density of water, in a 6 mi (10 k) radius, you think something like that has a gravitational force that drops off to zero in it's center, WOW, it's the gravity that is doing the pressurization! nothing else could! Oh yes, another BTW, WHEN I TYPE IN CAPS IT IS FOR EMPHASIS ONLY, I HAVE NO NEED TO SCREAM AT ANYONE, BUT WHEN YOU DO IT, WELL, I AM PROBABLY GRATEFUL, AS I NO LONGER NEED MY GLASSES TO READ YOU, SOMETHING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL YOUR OWN MIND, A JEDI 'TRICK', (no doubt) TEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-hee-hee-hee-he, as I had overheard, Jedi Jokster!)





BYE!

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Maybe this has already been answered.


Mr Parsons, consider an empty chamber in the center of the Earth and at time 0 an apple is suspended in the exact center. Now according to you, there is still gravity, so my question is, does the apple fall towards China or America?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I guess that's why it takes a physicist to realize that zero need not imply the absence of something. Then again, I suppose having an inflated ego enough to think you are more correct than many centuries worth of people who have studied many years and know the subject intimately. Good for you.

 

[yogi]

All experiments and all textbooks confirm that the gravitational field E falls off inversely with radius inside a homogeneous spherical mass, that is since E = GM/r^2 and since
M = (rho)V then E = G(rho)[4/3]pi(r^3)/r^2
therefore E = (4/3)(rho)(pi)r

What has all this got to do with the parent subject - namely the proposition that G is determined by expansion. I would comment also that the criticism of the theory based upon GR is unfounded - the derivation is for the coefficient G that appears in both the Newtonian and Einsteinian formulations - neither man could come up with an explanation of why G has the value it does. This should be the focus of the inquiry -

 

[heusdens]

I agree with the previous post, this whole discussion with Mr Parson, is off-topic, and not relevant to the issue of this thread, which is about the cause of gravity.

We should probably dedicate a whole new forum to the issues mentioned by Mr Parson. It would be the "educate Mr Parson" thread, cause from his posts it is clear, he hasn't the slightest understanding of the subject matter.

He keeps talking about G (gravity constant), while the issue at hand is gravity acceleration, and nothing else.

And he keeps thinking, that matter would accelerate at the center of gravity in the direction of the surface, while this is a simple impossibility (it can't spread out in all directions simultaniously).
If there is no nett force of gravity at the center, it means no acceleration, and not acceleration in the opposite direction.
Things fall "down", cause by definition down is the direction towards the center of gravity.

 

[heusdens]

Mr. Parson -- What happens if you put two exactly equal trucks front-to-front, with their bumpers touching each other, and both trucks would have their engines exert an equal force.
Well the fact is that besides a lot of noise, the slipping of the wheels, etc, nothing happens, that is, the two trucks won't move an inch (provided the forces exactly balance).

So, my notion of all this is: see, there is no NETT ACCELERATION, but there are forces, which exactly balance at that point.

 

[heisenberg]

General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas1.

Einstein put the terms in the field equations, but later retracted them, under pressure from the Hubble red-shift discoveries! (His greatest blunder)

 

[yogi]

heisenberg - i would not bet on the fact that GR failed to predict the corret recession speeds - as interpreted by distant 1a supernova - there are other explanations for the apparent dimming that is taken to be evidence of accceleration - things might have been different when the universe was younger - the factors that determine when the supernova event occurs are complicated - and anyone of them could conceivable lead to different dynamic conditions - for example, the very essense of this thread concerns whether G is constant - according to the expansion theory of gravity, G must be a variable if the expansion rate is always c - so if G were greater in the past, the supernova event might well be triggered with less mass and hence the apparent brightness would be less (not due to a greater distance but to a smaller mass than what is required for a contemporary supernova).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Mr. Parson -- What happens if you put two exactly equal trucks front-to-front, with their bumpers touching each other, and both trucks would have their engines exert an equal force.
Well the fact is that besides a lot of noise, the slipping of the wheels, etc, nothing happens, that is, the two trucks won't move an inch (provided the forces exactly balance).

So, my notion of all this is: see, there is no NETT ACCELERATION, but there are forces, which exactly balance at that point.

Your notion is what I have been telling is the answer, lots of force at the center, but that force arises from the accelerative nature of gravitational force, as it is not zero at the center, and it does NOT drop off as you approach the center, as it is gravity that provides/makes the pressure that is found there.

Originally posted by Heusdens

And he keeps thinking, that matter would accelerate at the center of gravity in the direction of the surface, while this is a simple impossibility (it can't spread out in all directions simultaniously).
If there is no nett force of gravity at the center, it means no acceleration, and not acceleration in the opposite direction.

So once again, (according to you) an object that is gravitational, will NOT move towards the spot where gravitational acceleration is greatest, somehow it will resist this motion, and without any forces acting upon it.

Sorry, don't buy that!

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak

Mr Parsons, consider an empty chamber in the center of the Earth and at time 0 an apple is suspended in the exact center. Now according to you, there is still gravity, so my question is, does the apple fall towards China or America?

Firstly, I see that you too see that it must Fall up, aside from that, it would fall in the direction of whatever imperfection in the non absolute sphericallity, that it has, that causes the slight influence that will begin it's acceleration towards the greater gravitational pull, either from it's own gravity, or from the greater gravitational attraction, that is above it, proven by the greater gravitational acceleration that can be measured there, according to these two other guys, NOT according to me.

But it answers your question, as anyone with "The Proof of the cause of Gravity" should be able to answer this entire issue, without question.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

6/5/2003

So in the example given by Heusdens of the two trucks in opposition, what I am attempting to explain to you, jargon aside, is that the force which is the gravitational force, (which arises from the acceleration due to gravity) is still operating at the center of the planet.

This is proven by the very simply observation of the pressure that IS there, as it is also very obvious from Heusdens example of the two trucks, as they are exerting pressure at their interface.

That the acceleration due to gravity is not observed (observable) does not mean that there is NO gravitational force at work, there is, same as it is very clear that the two truck are exerting force against each other. The resultant vector of acceleration is zero, but the vector of force is not cancelled, it is what generates the pressurization that the two truck are creating between them.

The idea that energy generates force is clear enough from the flashlight upon a scale, it gives a reading, therefore we know that it is able to generate a force, that is the same thing that gravity is doing at the center of the planet, generating a force, not an acceleration, and the force at that level is measurable as the pressurization of the matter.

Gravity is what is pressurizing the mass, all the way through to the center of the planet!

Measurable as 1/√r (Actually Gm/√r)

EDIT Sq rt of changed to √

 

[heusdens]

We never had a disagreement about pressure inside earth, and the fact that gravity works down there as well.

The only dispute was wethere there is a NETT RESULTANT force of gravity, a nonzero gravity acceleration right at the center of gravity of earth.

That is what you argued against.

Do you accept my proof now?

Nett force of gravity, resultant acceleration due to gravity at the center of eart, is zero, at the center of gravity.

End of discussion.