Clarification on Gravity

Good job on actually refuting SOMETHING I said. I'm a true believer of FE now.

It gets boring refuting the same idiotic statements every day. Say something original and not stupid.

Gravity exists because if you throw something upwards it falls back to the ground. If there was no gravity it would keep accelerating upwards until it left Earth forever, but there is a force (gravity) that makes it come back down to the ground.

This is why they say the Earth is accelerating upwards.

And clearly, using the word force and gravity means you haven't read the first post of this thread, and probably don't attend school.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 08, 2008, 02:36:18 PM

It's funny to me that it was pointed out the science trumps philosophy in this discussion, because my understanding is that according to quantum mechanics the reality we perceive is regarded as wholly probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Yes exactly, according to quantum mechanics you can walk through a wall but the probability is extremely low.

The probability for tunneling can be calculated for any object. 

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:20:47 PM

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 08:25:55 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:20:47 PM

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

So that experiment proves Einstein wrong?  How?

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:58:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 08:25:55 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:20:47 PM

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

So that experiment proves Einstein wrong?  How?

It doesn't - Einstein proved that it was impossible to distinguish via physical phenomena acceleration from gravity - they have the same effects.

However, that is not the same as saying that there *is* no such thing as gravity: If there were, the only way to reproduce the torque experiment (It has a formal name but I don't recall it at the moment) would be to introduce angular momentum into the system. However, since the torque is created simply by introducing a third known mass into the experiment, that fundamentally disproves the thesis.

Acceleration reproduces the effects of gravity, as predicted by Einstein, however straight line acceleration has verifiable effects that would be different from gravitational effects - there would be no (For instance) gravitational gradient within a system undergoing straight line acceleration.

CD

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass?

The Cavendish experiment doesn't prove gravity exists.

You can actually calculate G from just that.

What about it?

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

No, it's noninertial frame of reference. "Gravity" is used by physicists to explain the motions of an accelerating observer.

It doesn't - Einstein proved that it was impossible to distinguish via physical phenomena acceleration from gravity - they have the same effects.

Right. That's what proved gravity to be a fictitious force.

However, that is not the same as saying that there *is* no such thing as gravity:

It sure is the same to me.

If there were, the only way to reproduce the torque experiment (It has a formal name but I don't recall it at the moment) would be to introduce angular momentum into the system. However, since the torque is created simply by introducing a third known mass into the experiment, that fundamentally disproves the thesis.

The Cavendish experiment doesn't prove gravity exists.

Acceleration reproduces the effects of gravity, as predicted by Einstein, however straight line acceleration has verifiable effects that would be different from gravitational effects - there would be no (For instance) gravitational gradient within a system undergoing straight line acceleration.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 09:00:31 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:58:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 08:25:55 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:20:47 PM

Umm - do you people realize that the actual effects of gravity can be measured quite closely by the simple expedient of hanging two masses in a vacuum from a slim wire, and measuring quite carefully  the torque on the wire from a third mass? You can actually calculate G from just that.

If it were an inertial frame issue, that wouldn't work. We - like, did it in High School. guys.

CD

Does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread? 

The subject of this thread is a statement that Gravity is an illusion cause by inertial frame of reference.

Since that experiment would fail if that were the case, it seemed to me to be relevant.

So that experiment proves Einstein wrong?  How?

It doesn't - Einstein proved that it was impossible to distinguish via physical phenomena acceleration from gravity - they have the same effects.

However, that is not the same as saying that there *is* no such thing as gravity: If there were, the only way to reproduce the torque experiment (It has a formal name but I don't recall it at the moment) would be to introduce angular momentum into the system. However, since the torque is created simply by introducing a third known mass into the experiment, that fundamentally disproves the thesis.

Acceleration reproduces the effects of gravity, as predicted by Einstein, however straight line acceleration has verifiable effects that would be different from gravitational effects - there would be no (For instance) gravitational gradient within a system undergoing straight line acceleration.

CD

Gravity does not exist, and you appear to have completely missed the point of this thread.  lurk moar.

Gravity does not exist, and you appear to have completely missed the point of this thread.  lurk moar.

It appears so. He either didn't read the first post very well or didn't read it at all.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 10:34:48 PM

Gravity does not exist, and you appear to have completely missed the point of this thread.  lurk moar.

It appears so. He either didn't read the first post very well or didn't read it at all.

Ah the "He thinks the first post shows ignorance of basic logic and mathematics so he must not have read it!" Defense.

Given your capacity to post "Lurk Moar", I have no qualms translating that as "We have no answers but wish you'd shut the hell up and quit pointing out that fact.". Nope - having too much fun reading basically ignorant attempt to reconcile a blatantly illogical belief system and posting the all too obvious rejoinders.

CD

Gravity does not exist.  It is a fictitious force that arises due to the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

Gravity does not exist.  It is a fictitious force that arises due to the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment. As my Science class personally performed said experiment, conspiracy is not acceptable - <G>. Nor will I accept any 'special' masses.

Not liking the fact that there is a universal attractive force between any two has amazingly little to do with the fact that the existence of said force can be proven, it precise effects measured, calculated for any two objects to any degree of precision one chooses, and thereafter verified experimentally.

CD

If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment.

The Cavendish Experiment has absolutely zero to do with proving the existence of the force of gravity.

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 13, 2008, 08:46:08 PM

If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment.

The Cavendish Experiment has absolutely zero to do with proving the existence of the force of gravity.

Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.

Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nope, it does not prove that either.  There is no force between the objects.  The only forces in the system are in the torsion and tension of the string. 
Now, let me ask you this:  How can your version of gravity affect light?

Nothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Which, again, does not exist. 

Nope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.

It entered the conversation because you think you know more than you actually do.

Ah the "He thinks the first post shows ignorance of basic logic and mathematics so he must not have read it!" Defense.

Defense? Of what?

Given your capacity to post "Lurk Moar", I have no qualms translating that as "We have no answers but wish you'd shut the hell up and quit pointing out that fact.". Nope - having too much fun reading basically ignorant attempt to reconcile a blatantly illogical belief system and posting the all too obvious rejoinders.

Belief system? Don't tell me you've ignorantly labeled me as a flat Earth believer.

Another reason people need to read more.

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 13, 2008, 09:10:47 PM

Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nope, it does not prove that either.  There is no force between the objects.  The only forces in the system are in the torsion and tension of the string. 
Now, let me ask you this:  How can your version of gravity affect light?

Quote

Nothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Which, again, does not exist. 

Quote

Nope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.

It entered the conversation because you think you know more than you actually do.

Right. Before the other mass was added to the system, there *was* no torsion and tension in the string. After it was, there was torsion and tension in the string.

Fortunately there's no such thing as "Conservation of Mass and Energy", or you would be forced to conclude that the torsion introduced into the system had to do with a measurable attractive force following a precise mathematically predictable relationship to a known mass introduced into the system at the same time.

Which brings to mind the question - Didn't you *do* this test in high school? Mine was a poor high school, but we had a great Physics teacher that actually constructed this test and made us do it ourselves, do the math, et al. I have often been jealous of friends of mine that went to more highly funded high schools, but maybe I'm overestimating how much difference the money would have made.

CD

Right. Before the other mass was added to the system, there *was* no torsion and tension in the string. After it was, there was torsion and tension in the string.

Ok, that's what's supposed to happen.

Fortunately there's no such thing as "Conservation of Mass and Energy", or you would be forced to conclude that the torsion introduced into the system had to do with a measurable attractive force following a precise mathematically predictable relationship to a known mass introduced into the system at the same time.

I don't know why you would conclude that there is a force acting on the system.  Oh, wait, I do know why:  You are looking at the system from the wrong frame of reference.

Which brings to mind the question - Didn't you *do* this test in high school?

No, I did not. 

Now, I ask again: How can your version of 'gravity' affect light?

Do i see some posts being removed while other spam posts are encouraged? What gives?

Moderator's prerogative.

No, you just can't handle the truth.

Now, I ask again: How can your version of 'gravity' affect light?

It is rather simple, you first need to find the energy of the photon and you do this by taking Planck's constant(h) and multiplying it by the frequency of the wave(nu) then you set it equal to Einsteins equation
Like this
1)E=h(nu)
2)E=mc²

then put them together
h(nu)=mc²

the only unknown you will end up with will be the mass so you solve for "m"
now you have the mass of a photon and you can calculate gravitational fields with it all you want

Oh, so it is not based on mass.  I wish you people would get a single theory.  It would be so much easier to debate.

Oh, so it is not based on mass.  I wish you people would get a single theory.  It would be so much easier to debate.

I see an M in that equation...so ya you are solving for M (mass)

But photons are massless.

But photons are massless.

so you are saying that Einstein is wrong?

Uh, no.   

Uh, no.   

then do you want to rething your earlier responses