gravity

This may have been pointed out before, but I don't feel like looking for it.

Anyway, people have been measuring variations in local gravitational fields for quite a while in a number of different ways

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-61478/gravitation#210863.hook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

I recall hearing that the british dude who did the really good survery of india noticed that the gravitational attraction exerted by the mass of the Himalayas was easily measurable.

If you think that gravity is an attractive force produced by mass (or a warpage of space-time) than all these measurments make total sense.  If you think that gravity is caused by a flat earth accelerating continuously upwards, than they don't.

So it's pretty easy to show that gravity is not caused by the earth accelerating upwards.

I want to meet this British dude.

The level of g changes as you increase or decrease your altitude because the stars have a slight gravitational field.

Read the FAQ.

Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

IIRC the stars are motes.

Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

Can you explain what the mechanism is for this 'gravitational pull'?

The level of g changes as you increase or decrease your altitude because the stars have a slight gravitational field.

Read the FAQ.

Dude man, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT ALTITUDE!!!!!!   READ mY FRIGGAN POST!!!!!!

It's about differences that you see in different places at the same altitude.  The use gravimeters to find minerals & stuff in the ground.

Ever heard of a Cavendish balance?

Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

I don't believe it's been proven that the stars are made of matter. I believe it's much more likely that the stars are concentrated motes of energy.

It's about differences that you see in different places at the same altitude.  The use gravimeters to find minerals & stuff in the ground.

Example?

Ever heard of a Cavendish balance?

TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer and aircraft pilot who posts on these forums, already debunked the Cavendish Experiment.

In a thread not too long ago TheEngineer had this to say about a recent "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that at least this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is flawed. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth science.

Quote from: Fredo on April 29, 2008, 03:28:13 PM

Why is it that the earth doesn't have a gravitational pull when stars do? They are made of matter, and so is the earth. That means that the earth should have a gravitational pull. What feature do the stars have that the earth doesn't?

I don't believe it's been proven that the stars are made of matter. I believe it's much more likely that the stars are concentrated motes of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

I take it that you don't believe that spectroscopy can be a valuable tool in helping to determine the composition of various luminous objects?  Like, for example, stars?

Quote

Ever heard of a Cavendish balance?

TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer and aircraft pilot who posts on these forums, already debunked the Cavendish Experiment.

In a thread not too long ago TheEngineer had this to say about a recent "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that at least this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is flawed. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth science.

Later on in that same thread, he also said:

Yes, there is an acceleration between masses that we know as gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

I take it that you don't believe that spectroscopy can be a valuable tool in helping to determine the composition of various luminous objects?  Like, for example, stars?

Spectrum Analysis is flawed. An artificial light displays as much spectrum as the sun despite being composed of entirely different elements, as Thomas Winship informs us.

Read: http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA6,M1

Later on in that same thread, he also said: "Yes, there is an acceleration between masses that we know as gravitation."

There's a difference between gravitation and Gravity. They are not the same thing. Gravitation is simply the action of two bodies accelerating into each other. When two remote controlled toy cars crash into each other they are 'gravitating' into each other. When I flick a rubber band towards the wall I have caused the rubber band to 'gravitate' towards the wall. Gravity, on the other hand, is a specific hypothetical mechanism for gravitation postulated by Issac Newton in the 1600's.

Read: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

I take it that you don't believe that spectroscopy can be a valuable tool in helping to determine the composition of various luminous objects?  Like, for example, stars?

Spectrum Analysis is flawed. An artificial light displays as much spectrum as the sun despite being composed of entirely different elements, as Thomas Winship informs us.

Read: http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA6,M1

And the science of spectroscopy has made absolutely no progress in refining their techniques in the past 100 years or so since that book was written.   

Quote

Later on in that same thread, he also said: "Yes, there is an acceleration between masses that we know as gravitation."

There's a difference between gravitation and Gravity. They are not the same thing. Gravitation is simply the action of two bodies accelerating into each other. When two remote controlled toy cars crash into each other they are 'gravitating' into each other. When I flick a rubber band towards the wall I have caused the rubber band to 'gravitate' towards the wall. Gravity, on the other hand, is a specific hypothetical mechanism for gravitation postulated by Newton in the 1600's.

Read: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

I suppose that the definition of gravitation depends on the context.  However, in the context of this discussion thread, I would say that your examples are not the appropriate context.

And to put Divito's post into a more appropriate context, here is a little more of the Wiki article that he quoted from:

The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other.

And the science of spectroscopy has made absolutely no progress in refining their techniques in the past 100 years or so since that book was written.   

How does one go about changing the spectrum of the sun? 

I suppose that the definition of gravitation depends on the context.  However, in the context of this discussion thread, I would say that your examples are not the appropriate context.

TheEngineer never uses 'gravitation' to mean 'Gravity,' a 'bending of space-time' or 'Graviton Particles'. The word 'gravitation' is specifically reserved to mean the physical acceleration of masses and nothing more.

I don't believe it's been proven that the stars are made of matter. I believe it's much more likely that the stars are concentrated motes of energy.
 

I find this about as amusing as Tom Bishop's assertion that he can't see photons...

e=mc^2

Quote

And the science of spectroscopy has made absolutely no progress in refining their techniques in the past 100 years or so since that book was written.   

How does one go about changing the spectrum of the sun? 

By adding different elements to it? 

Tom, sometimes I wonder about you.  Where did I say, or even imply, anything about changing the spectrum of the sun?  What makes you think that, in the 100 or so years since Winship wrote that book, the science of spectroscopy has not advanced to the point where scientists can take far more accurate readings of the sun's spectrum and use those readings to make a far more accurate analysis of the composition of the sun than was possible in 1899?

Quote

I suppose that the definition of gravitation depends on the context.  However, in the context of this discussion thread, I would say that your examples are not the appropriate context.

TheEngineer never uses 'gravitation' to mean 'Gravity,' a 'bending of space-time' or 'Graviton Particles'. The word 'gravitation' is specifically reserved to mean the physical acceleration of masses and nothing more.

I don't see where he used gravitation to refer to toy cars crashing into each other, or rubber bands being flicked at walls either.

Quote

It's about differences that you see in different places at the same altitude.  The use gravimeters to find minerals & stuff in the ground.

Example?

Quote

Ever heard of a Cavendish balance?

TheEngineer, a mechanical engineer and aircraft pilot who posts on these forums, already debunked the Cavendish Experiment.

In a thread not too long ago TheEngineer had this to say about a recent "Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--

There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments.  The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights.  Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights.  This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact.  Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy.  Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses.  Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video.  However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.

Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.

Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.

BTW, it is stated on Wiki:

"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"

Ergo we see that at least this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is flawed. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth science.

Examples?

http://www.earth2006.org.au/papers/extendedpdf/Nind%20Chris%20BHGM%20Final%20Apr%2025%202006.pdf

You can find any number of examples that you like; that was just the first one to pop up on google.  This one's kind of cool:

http://www.cat.csiro.au/dem/msg/scirev/gravity.pdf


TheEngineer did not debunk the Cavendish experiment.  He pointed out some flaws that he thought he saw (he could be right; I haven't watched the videos or anything) in one particular experiment.  That doesn't show that Cavendish is flawed at all.

If gravity did not exist as a force than the people who run these sorts of experiments

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/bigG/bigG.html

 would have noticed.

If gravity did not exist as a force than the people who run these sorts of experiments

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/bigG/bigG.html

 would have noticed.

Did you read that article? 

I did.  Even a measurement that's not particularly accurate is enough to show that gravitational acceleration exists.

The part where it's explained why gravity is not a force is here:

Early in this century Albert Einstein developed his theory of gravity called General Relativity in which the gravitational attraction is explained as a result of the curvature of space-time. This curvature is proportional to G.

Yes.  And that has no impact whatsoever on what I am talking about.  Let me put this very, very simply (though I'm sure you get what I'm saying Roundy, you aren't stupid) so that everyone on this board can understand.

(1) Tom says that gravitational acceleration is caused by the earth continuously accelerating upwards.
(2) If this was true that we would not see local variations in the earths gravitational acceleration (in the value of G).
(3) People have been observing these variations since Newton.  They have done it countless times in many different situations.
(4) So gravitational acceleration is not caused by the Earth accelerating upwards.

Yes.  And that has no impact whatsoever on what I am talking about.  Let me put this very, very simply (though I'm sure you get what I'm saying Roundy, you aren't stupid) so that everyone on this board can understand.

(1) Tom says that gravitational acceleration is caused by the earth continuously accelerating upwards.
(2) If this was true that we would not see local variations in the earths gravitational acceleration (in the value of G).
(3) People have been observing these variations since Newton.  They have done it countless times in many different situations.
(4) So gravitational acceleration is not caused by the Earth accelerating upwards.

Does that somehow justify your statement in that post I quoted that gravity is a force? 

No.  I should have said "acceleration" not "force"

Fair enough.

And to put Divito's post into a more appropriate context, here is a little more of the Wiki article that he quoted from:

Doesn't really need to be in a more appropriate context; my thread also includes this statement:

Gravity and gravitation can be interchanged in everyday use. However, when dealing with science and scientific discussion (such as on this forum), they are distinct terms and should be used as such.

Quote from: markjo on April 29, 2008, 08:06:36 PM

And to put Divito's post into a more appropriate context, here is a little more of the Wiki article that he quoted from:

Doesn't really need to be in a more appropriate context; my thread also includes this statement:

Quote from: divito the truthist on January 18, 2008, 02:08:57 PM

Gravity and gravitation can be interchanged in everyday use. However, when dealing with science and scientific discussion (such as on this forum), they are distinct terms and should be used as such.

Well, it was Tom that I was dealing with, and you know how he likes to take things out of context.