Lack of Gravity

  • 93 Replies
  • 11523 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2010, 10:45:54 AM »
Masses are not naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' Nikola Tesla

Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').

At the age of 81, Tesla challenged Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing that he was working on a dynamic theory of gravity that would do away with the calculation of space curvature.

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein's statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.

G.F. Riemann introduced (1854 - http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html) the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann's original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an amorphous continuum. Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=537#p24341 (How the crucial Einstein shift experiments of 1919/1922 were FALSIFIED)


The extraordinary mistakes of A. Einstein:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm

Many physicists who believe Einstein's theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein's relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'

William Cantrell: First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein's theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930082557/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3

When Lorentz first developed the idea of length contraction to explain the Michelson-Morley result, it struck many scientists as thoroughly arbitrary and ad hoc. Lorentz admitted that he had arrived at his equations by trial and error. It is noteworthy that no length contraction has ever been measured experimentally.

As for time dilation/clock slowing, it is known that the rate of radioactive decay of mesons slows down when they move at high speed, and the 1972 H'fele-Keating experiment found that an atomic clock transported eastward around the world lost 59 nanoseconds while a clock transported westward gained 273 nanoseconds. Obviously, such findings do not prove that time itself has dilated; it is more logical to suppose that motion affects the internal processes of particles and atoms. All physical devices used for time-keeping are subject to error when accelerated or decelerated, or moved through gravitational fields of different strengths. However, there are indications that the amount of clock retardation need not conform to Lorentz's ad hoc equation. Relativists claim that if one of two twin brothers journeys into outer space at enormously high speed and then returns to earth, he will have aged much less than his brother but this is no more than a speculative hypothesis.

If particles are accelerated to relativistic speeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to accelerate them further. Their exponentially increasing inertia as the speed of light is approached is usually attributed to the transformation of kinetic energy into inertial mass. But this interpretation is open to question. Relativists admit that the mass of the body concerned would appear to be constant in its own reference frame. It therefore makes more sense to regard the inertial mass of a system as purely a measure of its rest energy and therefore as independent of velocity. Instead of invoking relativistic mass increase, the experimental results can be explained on the theory that an accelerated massbound charge increasingly resists addition of kinetic energy that approaches the magnitude of its rest mass, and radiates thermal energy to keep its mass-energy constant.


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION?

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html

(Lorentz transformations) http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html


UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY OF EINSTEIN:

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html


What is wrong with Relativity:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html


1919 DATA FALSIFICATION:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science (PDF)

Moody -Eclipse_Data_From_1919Rev1.pdf
By Richard Moody Jr.



Einstein the plagiarist:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm


Did Einstein cheat?

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf


Was Einstein wrong about special relativity:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/44738


EINSTEIN 1905 MISTAKES:

http://www.johnpeckscience.com/


TSR HOAX:

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html


http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


STR/GTR DISASTER:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm


STR MISTAKES:

http://www.helmut-hille.de/units.html

http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf

http://www.catholicintl.com/scienceissues/critique-dermott3.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20071010075248/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html


H. Dingle critique of special relativity:

http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
(How anybody who dares to criticize the relativity theory is eliminated from the research labs/courses in universities)
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 10:54:47 AM by levee »

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2010, 10:49:08 AM »
Masses are not naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.
Stopped reading here. Are you really trying to say that time doesn't exist? The way we MEASURE time is man made, but time surely and certainly does exist.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 10:58:54 AM »
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.


*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2010, 11:02:18 AM »
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.


I'll apologize now and re-read, but "the rate at which events occur", specifically "events occur" show that time does exist.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2010, 11:05:59 AM »
Time is an agreed upon frame of reference, totally man-made, just like irrational numbers, for example. One cannot use time and space (both just frames of reference) to invent or conjure up another dimension, as Minkowsky did.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2010, 12:01:09 PM »
Time is just nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.
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.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2010, 02:41:44 PM »
Wasn't Tesla insane or something?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2010, 03:16:48 PM »
Time is just a frame of reference, that is all. Listen to Tesla:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.



How does Einstein fit into your pseudo-history of the world, Levee? I'm not one to suggest that ad hominem arguments are valid criticisms, but when I read what you post in the members only forum I have trouble taking anything you say seriously.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2010, 07:28:04 PM »
Bah, I'm done posting any new threads on here. All it ever does is escalate into a battle between intellectuals who 'know' they're right. Okay, there's nothing more to argue, my questions were answered. I was curious; even if you don't believe in this theory doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. That's like being a dick to someone for their religion, or lack thereof...

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2010, 07:48:48 PM »
Bah, I'm done posting any new threads on here. All it ever does is escalate into a battle between intellectuals who 'know' they're right. Okay, there's nothing more to argue, my questions were answered. I was curious; even if you don't believe in this theory doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it. That's like being a dick to someone for their religion, or lack thereof...

I would have no problem with the flat earthers if their ideas were based on religion, but they argue that it is science.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2010, 08:05:48 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2010, 09:01:14 AM »
Tesla was a nut job but he was also a great scientist so sometimes you have to treat what he says with a pinch of salt (or indeed somtimes a large salt mine) but at other times he showed a depth of insight into electromagnetism only really matched by Maxwell.

Time is a quantity that many scientists are reticent to think of as a dimension, the number of equations in machanics that have the form F(X, t) would seem to me to give a clue. The 4-vector notation is common in electrodynamics because what ever your philosophical bent electromagnetism works far more naturally with time as a pseudo-dimension. Although beauty isn't always a clue to the truth. Is time the 4th dimension is a question that gets asked a lot. I don't know the answer so I give a little example. I want to meet a friend so I say ill meet you in teh building at the corner of 4th and 1st. Is that enough? No. You need to say what floor. So i'll agree to meet them at the corner of 4th and 1st on the 3rd floor. There are only 3 dimensions so we're good now. Im willing to bet that at some point ill wish we'd agreed a time as well. The fact is we live our entire lives talking in 4 dimensions. Specious argument? Maybe, but I think it makes a point.

So then lets look at the science. There are other ways to explain the results of relativity in my view none more plausible though a few not ridiculous either. The original Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for effects not far larger than their errors. Although by their final iteration for the ether to exist they would have had to have missed a pretty large systematic. By the start of the second world war more sensitive experiments further reduced the possible speed of the ether to less than 1 km/s. Now very large Michelson interfermometers exist with km scale baselines looking fore far more subtle effects than any ether wind. Although in my opinion the best evidence for Einsteins postulates comes from quantum mechanics. When special relativity was quantum mechanics were combined the result was some of the most predictive theories ever. I don't think that you get a theory accurate to better than 1 in 1000000000000 by pure fluke, you have to be getting something a little bit right.

As to alternative theories to relativity. In many ways its a matter of personal preference. If someone comes up with a theory that gives the same results then it really is a matter of personal preference. There are a lack of really predictive alternatives which is part of the reason its stayed on the fringe. Is suspect that lack of truely predicitve alternatives may be telling us something.  Though as far as I know these don't change any of Einsteins basic postulates. Rather like anti-gravity and free energy its been tared by the nut job brush as well which never helps. This is a sociological phenomenon which in my opinion is damaging to science because if someone really does come up with something revolutionary in the field then they may be ignored. Unfortunately its rather like scientific spam so much rubbish gets sent around that in practise its easier to ignore it all. I may well have deleted a perfectly good offer of business from Nigerian millionaire in the same way I may have ignored a paper from a genius. Unfortunately a quick look on google reveals arguments that seem to think that rotation is uniform motion, a complete lack of understanding of the difference between phase and group velocities, an incomplete understanding of how light propagates through matter. Many are philosophical disagreements as much as physical ones. All that said alternative theories are out there, MOND or scalar, vector, tensor gravity would be examples.


Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2010, 09:02:02 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2010, 09:16:23 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.

It seems a very good question to me and deserving a serious answer especially given the context of this sequence of argument.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2010, 09:19:25 AM »
The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass. This is what gravity fundamentally is. Therefore it is not necessary to investigate the properties of Teh Magik Axcelerator Pedal as it's not required to explain any phenomena when gravity does it perfectly well.
Pray tell then, how does this mass know where the other mass is so that it can attract it? And how do they know what their respective masses are?

Are these serious questions? Lead balls aren't sentient. Masses are naturally attracted to each other because of the curvature of space time.
What is this space time curvature? Please point me to the place in Isaac Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' where he mentions this concept.

This is beneath you - and you know it.

It seems a very good question to me and deserving a serious answer especially given the context of this sequence of argument.

Newton never attemped to provide a mechanism for gravity. All he noted was the behaviour of the mechanism, as I think Parsec well knows. Not until general relativity did we have a possible mechanism for gravity. Of course many (not necessarily me) think that gravity is like all other interactions and relies on virtual particle exchange. Unfortunately its such a pathetically weak interaction its hard to find the exchange particle.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2010, 09:26:17 AM »
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2010, 09:30:11 AM »
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

No because Newtons work is of no consequence to why masses appear to be attracted he simply noted that they do. I can correctly summise that the sun is bright without attempting to explain why. A more appropriate question would have been please point to me where in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is says that gravity is due to space time curvature. Looking in the principia is about as pertinant to the question as last months edition of jugs (does that really exist).

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2010, 09:37:57 AM »
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :) 

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2010, 09:42:40 AM »
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :) 

He was perfectly happy with the idea of an attractive force. He wasn't particularly happy he didn't know why. Still pendula are attracted to mountains so he couldn't deny it, just sit there looking glum for 250 years.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2010, 09:59:52 AM »
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2010, 10:09:36 AM »
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.

I think that was Parsec's point.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2010, 10:15:29 AM »
This does not explain an "attractional force" as used in this argument.  Parsec's question was very much to the point, don't you think?

It would be if Newton was the final authority on gravity.  He isn't.

I think that was Parsec's point.

When was it suggested that Newton is the final authority gravity?  ???
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2010, 10:45:42 AM »
You may wish to review the sequence of posts to which Parsec was replying. In particular, "The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass." 

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2010, 10:57:37 AM »
Yes, and I think Newton was particularly bothered by what might appear to be an "attractional force" and why Parsec had good reason to question the notion.  My point is that I agree with Parsec's point.  :)  

He was perfectly happy with the idea of an attractive force. He wasn't particularly happy he didn't know why. Still pendula are attracted to mountains so he couldn't deny it, just sit there looking glum for 250 years.


Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.


From textbooks:

These equations contain the mass-energy density ρ(r) and pressure p(r) of the medium responsiblefor producing the gravity. They illustrate a key difference between General Relativity and Newto-nian gravity: In General Relativity, pressure is a source of gravity. The units of pressure are forceper unit area, which is equivalent to energy per unit volume.



Since space-time (which does not exist anyway) is a pressure type of gravity, how then do the 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the spherical earth? This huge pressure force would crush everything else (clouds, living beings) to the ground immediately.


The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler (copied from Arryabhatia).  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.





The impossibility of the spherical shape of the Sun:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;  in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2010, 11:04:34 AM »
You may wish to review the sequence of posts to which Parsec was replying. In particular, "The Cavendish Experiment proves the existence of an attractional force between objects proportional to their mass." 

Are you suggesting that Cavendish doesn't show this attraction?
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2010, 11:25:04 AM »
What happened to the 'force' part?

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2010, 11:33:12 AM »
Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:

Apparently Newton didn't live in the same century we thought he did:

Quote from: levee
Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India, Sumer, Babylon, were all invented in the 18th century by Joseph Scaliger and the Jesuit priests, see Fomenko's books for details. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Cezar, Archimedes were invented also, as were the ancient wars and historical events. Galilei and Koppernigk also never existed; J. Kepler and T. Brahe lived in the period 1770-1820, as did I. Newton; they were contemporaries with Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael (see my previous message).

I cannot take anything you say seriously.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2010, 11:39:36 AM »
But back to the issue at hand, Newton did believe in gravity, he just didn't understand its cause:

Quote
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2010, 11:48:21 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

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Lack of Gravity
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2010, 11:50:00 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?