Lack of Gravity

  • 93 Replies
  • 11527 Views
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2010, 03:22:25 PM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2010, 03:24:30 PM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2010, 04:29:12 PM »
The effect of mountain ranges on the oscillation of pendulums is well documented. It certainly was well published in the 1890's in Nature. I forget where but there are some fantastically sensitive pendulum experiments looking at gravitation on the mm or lower scale. The more I post on the these gravity threads I wonder if I shouldn't have gone that way like matrix. Although HEP is also fun.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2010, 10:21:32 PM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2010, 11:47:34 PM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
I don't know how to answer this question because my FET's are all made up and this situation has no explanation in my fantasy world, yet it does in RET.
Glad to see you've finally come to your senses.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2010, 10:48:05 AM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
Well, until the person who posed the question defines an operational way of determining whether something is "vertical" or not, I am afraid I will be unable to give a definite answer.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2010, 11:47:47 AM »
Its my fault really. I shouldnt keep posting about things that FE cannot explain. Its not really in the spirit of the forum.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2010, 11:53:10 AM »
Don't delete my posts. they're valid. I don't see Parsec doing anything constructive at all. He needs to GTFO.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #68 on: February 28, 2010, 02:42:27 PM »
Don't delete my posts. they're valid. I don't see Parsec doing anything constructive at all. He needs to GTFO.


If you have a problem, take it to S&C.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2010, 08:26:46 PM »
Ok I stand near a large mountain range with a pendulum. Does the pendulum point vertically down or does it move slightly towards the mountains?

No cheating and looking on google
What's vertically down?
What do you think it means? :)
It is not important. I was not the one using this term in a fictitious situation. It is up to the person who used it to clarify what he meant to the others. Now please stop the low-content posting.
Classic parsec ;). I think when he says vertically down he means, well, down (towards the centre of the Earth in RET). I'll admit it was a bit redundant, but it should not have been too difficult for a rational person to understand what he meant. By saying vertically down, I think he just wanted to differentiate between a perfectly vertical pendulum and one that "hangs" slightly towards a nearby mountain.

Anyways, back to his question. The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.
Well, until the person who posed the question defines an operational way of determining whether something is "vertical" or not, I am afraid I will be unable to give a definite answer.

Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #70 on: February 28, 2010, 08:32:41 PM »
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #71 on: February 28, 2010, 08:36:33 PM »
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.
Then stop being a cock about it, try and figure out what he's saying and answer the damn question. Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #72 on: February 28, 2010, 09:35:44 PM »
Can you give an answer under the conditions I set?

The pendulum would (assuming there are no other factors in play) not be perfectly vertical, but would "point" ever so slightly towards the mountain. I'm not sure how FET explains this, but I'm sure there is an elaborate creative hypothesis to explain it.

No, because you used the concept of "vertical direction" and a declination from it without properly defining it it first.

I can't really explain it in simpler terms. I think 2fst4u hit the nail on the head.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2010, 10:46:16 PM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #74 on: February 28, 2010, 11:05:58 PM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another. I know this doesn't really satisfy the post I quoted, but the question that was posed to you a few posts back was, "Does it do this in FET?"
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #75 on: February 28, 2010, 11:08:44 PM »
Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another.
...
"Does it do this in FET?"

I don't think they necessarily have to be.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #76 on: March 01, 2010, 12:43:19 AM »
Well maybe a pendulum doesn;t have to be attracted. Maybe they choose to be it could be personal preference but I think it unlikely, i've never come across a particularly self aware pendulum. I'm less sure you are a physics student the trouble with wikipedia and the general level of science here is most of the time its impossible to tell the difference.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39106
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #77 on: March 01, 2010, 05:33:21 AM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.

Both are recorded in an 1893 essay by J. H. Poynting: The Mean Density of the Earth.  A digitized copy of the text can be accessed currently through Google at

http://books.google.com/books?id=dg0RAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If you'd like to peer review it, I'm sure that it's an experiment that you can recreate yourself rather inexpensively.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #78 on: March 01, 2010, 07:27:15 AM »
Under RET it does because a large mountain is effectively a giant mass and within RET, masses are naturally attracted towards one another.
...
"Does it do this in FET?"

I don't think they necessarily have to be.

There's the answer we've been trying to get for the last two pages. Thank you.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #79 on: March 01, 2010, 08:20:47 AM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 08:25:52 AM by parsec »

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #80 on: March 01, 2010, 09:40:50 AM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #81 on: March 01, 2010, 05:15:37 PM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
You are not replying to what I said. Is there any way in the above mentioned method that the angle between the apparent position of the star and the direction of the pendulum can change even if there was not any gravitational attraction between the mass of the mountain and the pendulum?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #82 on: March 01, 2010, 05:27:17 PM »
How would a star change position in the sky like that?

Besides we don't need stars anymore. GPS does that for us.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2010, 05:27:52 PM »
How would a star change position in the sky like that?

Besides we don't need stars anymore. GPS does that for us.
::)

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #84 on: March 01, 2010, 05:31:31 PM »
Please make a point.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #85 on: March 01, 2010, 05:35:22 PM »
Please make a point.
A star's position on the sky changes depending from the vantage point on the Earth.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #86 on: March 01, 2010, 05:36:08 PM »
Even if the vantage points are only a mile away from each other? You honestly believe the experimenters missed that little detail?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #87 on: March 01, 2010, 08:58:41 PM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.

Assuming that the Earth is flat, how do you then explain the deflection of the pendulum?
You are not replying to what I said. Is there any way in the above mentioned method that the angle between the apparent position of the star and the direction of the pendulum can change even if there was not any gravitational attraction between the mass of the mountain and the pendulum?

We are working under the assumption that the people performing this experiment already took this into account. This is like saying "how do you know a goat didn't come over and lick the pendulum?" If you don't believe the experiment can possibly be true, just say so and we'll let it die.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39106
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #88 on: March 01, 2010, 09:11:35 PM »
Why does a suspended weight have an attraction towards a large mountain?
How do you know it does?

Because it has been demonstrated.
Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05322.htm
A second involved deflection of a pendulum near a mountain.  Using a star as a reference, deflection of a pendulum on top of a mountain and near the same mountain could provide a ratio of Earth mass to mountain mass.
His method for determining the deflection of the pendulum tacitly assumes RET.
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #89 on: March 01, 2010, 09:20:40 PM »
Then how would you suggest detecting any deflection without assuming anything about the shape of the earth?  It's not as if you could use a plumb bob.
Why would I want to do that?