# Gravitational Pull

• 28 Replies
• 6506 Views
?

#### a to the z

##### Gravitational Pull
« on: February 04, 2008, 05:01:59 PM »
If the sun and the moon revolve around the earth, the the earth must have a substantial amount of mass to acuire this pull( even if the earth is excelerating up at 1G)

People have said that the other side of the earth was made of just simple rocks, but i belive that would not have the mass required to have the pull of the sun and the moon around the earth.

This has led me to believe that the other side should be made of a material with more mass, like lead or any other metal.

This has also led me to believe that the otherside might be radioactive!  If there was a nuclear reaction going on the underside of the earth this could produce heat that would match what others believe as the center of the earth and the molten rock that lies there.

This would also help the increase the weight on the other side so that the pull could occure for the sun and moon to revolve around the earth.

Please let me know what you think!!!

a to the z

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2008, 05:33:26 PM »
If the sun and the moon revolve around the earth
No, the sun does not revolve around the Earth (FE or RE).

the the earth must have a substantial amount of mass to acuire this pull( even if the earth is excelerating up at 1G)
In the FE, gravitation is not required for this to happen. In the RE, yes. However, the RE does not pull the Sun towards it.

People have said that the other side of the earth was made of just simple rocks, but i belive that would not have the mass required to have the pull of the sun and the moon around the earth.

This has led me to believe that the other side should be made of a material with more mass, like lead or any other metal.
Due to UA, the Moon and the Sun accelerates upward at 9.8m/s2 relative to the Earth. No gravitational pull is required.

This has also led me to believe that the otherside might be radioactive!  If there was a nuclear reaction going on the underside of the earth this could produce heat that would match what others believe as the center of the earth and the molten rock that lies there.
What?

This would also help the increase the weight on the other side so that the pull could occure for the sun and moon to revolve around the earth.
Again, in the FE, the Sun and the Moon revolve above the Earth. In the RE, the Moon revolves around the Earth, which in turn revolves around the Sun.

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2008, 12:53:00 AM »
I once theorised that the underside of the earth was fusioning, which was producing the UA. This also conveniently explains the molten mantle that we find underneath the earth.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

#### James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2008, 09:45:32 AM »
Gravity doesn't exist. Read before you post.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

• FES' Anchor Roo
• The Elder Ones
• 4551
• K800 Model 101.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2008, 09:59:30 AM »
Please let me know what you think!!!
Request denied.

?

#### The Communist

• 1217
• Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2008, 02:22:56 PM »
I once theorised that the underside of the earth was fusioning, which was producing the UA. This also conveniently explains the molten mantle that we find underneath the earth.

Interesting, I wonder if Earth could go through star phases such as super novas?
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

?

#### metal0130

• 6
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2008, 07:38:40 PM »
I couldnt imagine a disk collapsing on itself though, or expanding for that matter. hmm

?

#### The Terror

• 1776
• Flat Earth Propane Tank
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2008, 04:04:03 PM »
Gravity doesn't exist. Read before you post.

You're going to be so pissed off when gravitons are discovered. Actually you'll probably just say it's a trick

#### Raist

• The Elder Ones
• 30590
• The cat in the Matrix
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2008, 06:42:46 PM »
Gravity doesn't exist. Read before you post.

You're going to be so pissed off when gravitons are discovered. Actually you'll probably just say it's a trick
And how would these prove gravity?

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2008, 09:13:51 PM »
Gravity doesn't exist. Read before you post.

You're going to be so pissed off when gravitons are discovered. Actually you'll probably just say it's a trick
And how would these prove gravity?

Well, if they were discovered it would prove that gravity is a real force and not a fictitious one. Gravity would be propogated by gravitons in the same way other forces are propogated by force carrier particles, such as electromagnetic/coulombic forces by photons or strong forces by gluons. In this way, gravitation would be a direct interaction between objects of mass, not the effect of mass/energy on the geodesics of space-time as explained by General Relativity (by this definition of gravitiation, gravity is indeed a fictitious force)... I think, anyways. If they were discovered...that is.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 09:16:16 PM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

?

#### The Terror

• 1776
• Flat Earth Propane Tank
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2008, 03:14:29 AM »
Yes, what he said

#### divito the truthist

• The Elder Ones
• 6903
• Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2008, 05:50:48 AM »
Gravitons would do nothing for gravity. They would do something for gravitation though.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2008, 07:17:17 AM »
Gravitons would do nothing for gravity. They would do something for gravitation though.

That statement is untrue. Gravity would be proven to exist, as a non-fictitous force (if gravitons were proven to exist). You see, you and others have been posting under the premise that gravity does not exist, because gravity under the definition of General Relativity, is due to the curvature of space time (and not a force). Well, if gravitons were discovered, general relativity would be disproven and gravity would be unified with the other fundamental forces. In this model of gravitation, the phenomenon of gravitation is caused by a real force, therefore the concept of gravity as a force between bodies should be deemed correct.

Basically, it would prove gravity.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2008, 07:18:22 AM »
How would gravitons prove GR to be incorrect?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2008, 07:21:50 AM »
How would gravitons prove GR to be incorrect?

Well, how could gravitation be simultaneously caused by a force carrier and by space-time curvature?

What I am saying is if gravitons were proved to be the cause of gravitation, it would exclude the GR mechanism for explaining that same phenomenon, right?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 07:27:27 AM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2008, 07:37:47 AM »
What curves space?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2008, 07:44:16 AM »
What curves space?

Are you referring to space globally, as in the curvature of the universe, or space around matter and the effects of mass on it. As I understand, if gravitation by gravitons was proven correct, then mass/energy does not curve the space around it (if you are referring to the proposed local space curvature by mass/energy as proposed by GR).
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2008, 08:15:19 AM »
In terms of GR.  How does space know how and by how much to distort based on its distance from an object with mass/energy/momentum?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2008, 08:52:15 AM »
In terms of GR.  How does space know how and by how much to distort based on its distance from an object with mass/energy/momentum?

Pardon my ignorance, but I am not completely sure of what you are saying.  Are you saying that gravitons could be an intermediate for the transfer of information between matter and space-time? From what I understand about the two theories GR and the graviton models of gravity are irreconcilable, so if one was proven to be correct then the other could not possibally be.

Please keep in mind the whole premise of all of this is that gravitons are somehow observed to exist, and the implications of this on the theory of gravity. GR's geometric definition of gravitation is currently the best and most accepted explaniation of the phenomenon, so I am not arguing in favor of quantum field gravity.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2008, 08:54:36 AM »
So you would agree that there must be some sort of information transfer between objects with the 'big three' and space?  We can't detect this information transfer that we know must be going on.  Why can't the 'graviton' be this information carrier?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2008, 09:06:14 AM »
So you would agree that there must be some sort of information transfer between objects with the 'big three' and space?  We can't detect this information transfer that we know must be going on.  Why can't the 'graviton' be this information carrier?

Yeah, I would agree with that. The way I see it is this information carrier would be something different than the force carrier particle discribed by QF though, if a massless carrier of information was somehow proven to exist and interact this way then gravity would still be fictitious force, and GR would be validated. But I don't think this is the 'graviton' that Baron had in mind when he posted.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

?

#### The Terror

• 1776
• Flat Earth Propane Tank
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2008, 04:36:40 PM »
Beats me, I was only saying it to wind Dogplatter up

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2008, 05:08:54 PM »
Well, if gravitons were discovered, general relativity would be disproven and gravity would be unified with the other fundamental forces.
Actually, if graviton is discovered, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will be unified into a theory called "Quantum Gravity". It has nothing to disprove GR, since both theories reached the same result.

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2008, 09:38:12 PM »
Well, if gravitons were discovered, general relativity would be disproven and gravity would be unified with the other fundamental forces.
Actually, if graviton is discovered, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will be unified into a theory called "Quantum Gravity". It has nothing to disprove GR, since both theories reached the same result.

How did you come to that conclusion? Why do you feel the discovery of the graviton will somehow unify QM and GR? Like I said earlier, the QF graviton is much different than what TheEngineer proposed. In QF the graviton is a force carriers, not a messenger.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2008, 09:41:08 PM »
How did you come to that conclusion? Why do you feel the discovery of the graviton will somehow unify QM and GR?

Quote from: Wikipedia
If the graviton turns out not to exist, it will render all work based on quantized macroscopic physics flawed, and destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics since the 1970s, including string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and quantum gravity, among others.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity.

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2008, 09:46:10 PM »
Again I ask you, why does the discovery of the graviton necessarily mean that Quantum Field theory will be compatible with GR, as I understand no one has accomplished this task, and like you quoted, these theories all rely on the graviton existing as defined per QF theory. But there is no aspect in current QF theory that can be unified with GR. So while the graviton may be discovered or observed, Quantum Gravity will not necessarily be validated.

In short: That Quantum Gravity theories rely on the existance of the graviton, the existance of the graviton (were it to be proven to exist) does not necessarily validate any of those theories. (Note: I am not saying I believe Quantum Gravity is impossible)

I would like to admit that the discovery of the graviton does not have to disprove GR, that was a mistake on my part.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 10:28:37 PM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2008, 10:34:07 PM »
Again I ask you, why does the discovery of the graviton necessarily mean that Quantum Field theory will be compatible with GR
Quote
In particular, contrary to the popular but erroneous claim that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible, one can in fact demonstrate that the structure of general relativity essentially follows inevitably from the quantum mechanics of interacting theoretical spin-2 massless particles (called gravitons).

as I understand no one has accomplished this task.
Obviously.

and like you quoted, these theories all rely on the graviton existing as defined per QF theory.
Right.

But there is no aspect in current QF theory that can be unified with GR.
Of course there isn't.

So while the graviton may be discovered or observed, Quantum Gravity will not necessarily be validated.
Wow, you are so sure about the future.

the existance of the graviton does not necessarily validate any of those theories.
Quote
Wow, you are so sure about the future.

?

#### [][][]

• 554
• Man of science.
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2008, 10:46:36 PM »
What are you talking about? I said not necessarily, meaning that such a discovery may or may not. It is in fact you that seems very sure of the future here. I find it interesting that part of the wikipedia was unsourced.

Anyways I like this discussion and would like to continue tomorrow. Till then, goodnight.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 11:02:21 PM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

#### Jack

• 5179
##### Re: Gravitational Pull
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2008, 11:11:28 PM »
It is in fact you that seems very sure of the future here.
Really? So when did I argue that the unification is guaranteed to happen?

I find it interesting that part of the wikipedia was unsourced.
Well, maybe they forgot to make references. Here's one:

Quote
General relativity can be derived as consistent local field theory of massless spin 2 particle in the low-energy limit.