I proved gravity

  • 84 Replies
  • 17314 Views
I proved gravity
« on: March 15, 2019, 09:47:26 AM »
I wanted to know whether gravity exist.

So I performed the Cavendish experiment.

I believe I've proved to myself that gravity exists.

Naturally I don't want to be a victim of confirmation bias -- hey, I heard about gravity all my life, right? -- so I'm opening up my experiment to public critique.

It took a number of refinements from my initial attempt, but eventually I eliminated the affect of air currents, magnetism, and static electricity.

I had a pair of 11.5lb (5.2 kg) lead weights on a rotatable platform, and a pair of 1.5lb (680 g) lead weights attached to a copper tube beam, suspended on 13ft (4m) of mono-filament clear fish-line.

The hanging weights had a brass wire that dipped into a metal can of water to provide some damping against swinging, and to provide an electrical connection to make sure the big and small weights were all at the same electrical potential to rule out static attraction.

I had a string rigged up so I could rotate the platform without opening the box.

I had an IR wireless webcam inside to make time lapse videos.

There was a very weak but also very clear unmistakable attraction between the fixed and moving lead weights.

If this isn't gravity, what is it?

Any insight as to what I may have been detecting other than gravity would be most appreciated.

The following video plays at 60x realtime, so one second is really one minute of activity. One minute is really one hour of activity.

Isn't this pretty good evidence to me that gravity exists between terrestrial masses?


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7267
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2019, 10:43:10 AM »
Not attractive gravity.

Pressure gravity, yes.

The two objects are pushed against each other by an outside force.

As proven by the Lamoreaux experiment.

Can you explain to your readers how attractive gravity works? Do not try the QFT approach, it won't work.

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2019, 01:10:16 PM »
Not attractive gravity.

Pressure gravity, yes.

The two objects are pushed against each other by an outside force.

As proven by the Lamoreaux experiment.

Can you explain to your readers how attractive gravity works? Do not try the QFT approach, it won't work.

Sandokhan,

Thank you very much for your nice reply.

(Note that I do not know what "QFT" means, so if I try the QFT approach, it may mean I didn't know it.)

I had not heard of the name Lamoreaux, so I googled it, and came up with the "Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6um Range" by C. K. Lamoreaux at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Neutron Science and Technology Division.

http://web.mit.edu/kardar/www/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-Lamoreaux.pdf

Am I on the right path?

Are you suggesting that the attractive force between my lead weights was the Casimir Force?
I will admit to being a little confused on that though because the Casimir Force is so so small that even at the 6 micron distance it takes a tremendously sensitive apparatus inside a good vacuum to measure it.
And the distance between my weights was so much more than the 6 micron range, and there was no vacuum, I'm not sure I'm following your suggestion correctly.

This idea of pressure gravity is also new to me.

So are you saying that there are two kinds of gravity - one that has an attractive force, and one that has a repelling force?
And that the earth and the air cause a repelling force that push my lead weights toward eachother, with a force that is greater when the distance is less?
Did my big lead weights basically make shadows in the repelling gravity field, and the small weights were therefore pushed into the shadow by the repulsive gravity all around?

Or how would the two objects be pushed toward eachother by an outside force, unless they created shadows in that outside force?

I hope I'm not inadvertently taking the QFT approach since I don't know what that means, but I'm just trying to understand everything.

While I must admit that I struggle making sense of your large repository of formulas, I would be most grateful for any simple explanations you could provide.

Thank you very much, I really appreciate the accessible nature of your above reply and look forward to more details in the same style.

EDIT: PS, Forgot to reply to your question about whether I can explain attractive gravity to the readers.
If you mean explain the underlying principle that causes it, no, I cannot explain that.
Can you please explain either gravity to me? I definitely want to understand it if I can. Thanks!
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 01:20:45 PM by Tom Foolery »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7267
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2019, 01:45:17 PM »
If you mean explain the underlying principle that causes it, no, I cannot explain that.

Then, you are in no position to claim that it is attractive.

NIPHER EFFECT/EXPERIMENTS

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

"Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2019, 02:22:17 PM »
If you mean explain the underlying principle that causes it, no, I cannot explain that.

Then, you are in no position to claim that it is attractive.

Well, umm, I'm not claiming particularly that it's attractive, I'm just reporting what my senses observed.
It looked attractive.
It was not repulsive between my weights.
But I guess it could be that there is a repelling gravity, and all mass blocks this repelling gravity, causing, for all practical purposes, an attractive gravity.

I really don't see why I can't describe what I see as an attractive force when that most closely and simply resembles what I observe with my senses.

Can we also not say that light travels at a fast non-infinite speed if we cannot explain the lowest level of internal method by which light exists?
I don't get this idea that we can't describe a phenomenon as we see it unless we know what causes it at the lowest intrinsic level.

I would love to have been present when those guys were doing their static electricity and cavendish experiment.
Maybe some time I'll replicate that and see if I get the same results as them.
However, I suspect they didn't have things grounded as well as they thought, because incorrect grounding could cause exactly what they found.
As could ionized air leaking into their chamber.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time.

I'm still stuck with the fact that -- whether attracting or repelling -- there was some force which seems to bring masses toward eachother.
This goes against what I've heard so many times that gravity doesn't exist.
And it raises questions about the shape of the earth.
Maybe it's not flat like a pancake but flat like the end of a pencil with no eraser: That way the gravitational pull would be down all over the surface of the earth.

How would I measure to determine whether it was attracting or repelling? What experiment would demonstrate that it was one over the other?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2019, 03:29:13 PM »
Not attractive gravity.

Pressure gravity, yes.
But he certainly demonstrated that gravitation behaves as if mass attracts mass, whatever the ultimate cause.

And that is quite consistent with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: .

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation claims nothing about why gravitation behaves in that way.

Quote from: sandokhan
The two objects are pushed against each other by an outside force.

As proven by the Lamoreaux experiment.
Really?
What evidence have you that the physical forces known as the Casimir effect vary with the inverse square of distance as does gravitation.
You might read:
         Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 μm Range by S. K. Lamoreaux
    Please note that Steve Lamoreaux, himself, only measures the Casimir Force only to a range of 6 μm, not the thousands of kilometres to millions of light-years needed to explain gravitation.
         Experiment and theory in the Casimir effect by G. L. Klimchitskaya

This might also be relevant:
         Measured long-range repulsive Casimir–Lifshitz forces by J. N. Munday, Federico Capasso, and V. Adrian Parsegian

But look at Steve Lamoreaux's own results:


So I do hope you have further evidence that the Casimir Force falls off as the inverse square of distance and is effective over these large distances.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2019, 03:36:06 PM »
If you mean explain the underlying principle that causes it, no, I cannot explain that.
Then, you are in no position to claim that it is attractive.
Who claimed that the force was attraction between masses?
The hundreds of precise and thousands of qualitative experiments demonstrate quite conclusively that: Gravitation behaves as if mass attracts mass, whatever the ultimate cause.
And that is quite consistent with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: .

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2019, 04:01:30 PM »
This is hardly "proof" of gravity.  The process of rotating the apparatus causes the air to move in the direction of the rotation and that force is likely to be stronger than the minute force of gravity that is predicted to exist between those two masses:  the predicted gravitational force may even be below the frictional force due to the air, but you haven't done any of those crucial calculations.
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2019, 04:26:51 PM »
As proven by the Lamoreaux experiment.
The Lamoreaux experiment is fundamentally different to gravity and produces a force fundamentally different to gravity.
Otherwise it would have just been dismissed as gravity.
So no, we cannot tell it is pressure gravity.

The Lamoreaux experiment requires very small separations and still obtains a tiny force.

Can you explain how pressure gravity works, without appealing to magic?
Make sure you address why the force observed is dependent upon mass, rather than area.

But who really cares if it is pushing or pulling?
The simple fact is we observe a gravitational force making objects move towards one another, i.e. that they are attracting one another.

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2019, 04:32:44 PM »
Quote
Can you explain how pressure gravity works, without appealing to magic?
Make sure you address why the force observed is dependent upon mass, rather than area.
What are you talking about?  All force is dependent upon mass by definition:  F=ma, ie: a given amount of force is the ability to accelerate a given amount of mass by a given amount. 

The simple fact is we observe a gravitational force making objects move towards one another, i.e. that they are attracting one another.
"The simple fact" is that this amateur-hour experiment is invalid as proof of universal gravitation. 

« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 04:38:02 PM by GDg43SA »
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2019, 04:43:55 PM »
Quote
  Please note that Steve Lamoreaux, himself, only measures the Casimir Force only to a range of 6 μm, not the thousands of kilometres to millions of light-years needed to explain gravitation.
This presupposes that the motions of planets is caused by gravitation which is the very crux of the matter.  Hint:  it isn't:

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Celestial%20Dynamics%20and%20Rotational%20Forces.pdf

"Abstract: The understanding of circular motion as being conditioned by a central force
coupled to a tangential velocity is questioned, by analyzing the origins of its derivation,
and revising it in the light of rotational kinematics. It is shown that one cannot stop the
analysis at a force directed to the center, but has to continue it to include an infinite series
of higher order rotational forces in four perpendicular directions. The verification of this
in terrestrial dynamics, as well as the consequences of its application in celestial
dynamics is presented. It is shown that Newton’s Moon Test and inverse-square law,
even with the corrections of General Relativity, do not support circular and elliptical
motion and lead to an erroneous expression – a problem that has been noticed and
remedied by other independent researchers."
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2019, 04:57:52 PM »
Not attractive gravity.

Pressure gravity, yes.

The two objects are pushed against each other by an outside force.

As proven by the Lamoreaux experiment.

Can you explain to your readers how attractive gravity works? Do not try the QFT approach, it won't work.
Forces can be felt. Gravity cannot.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2019, 06:11:39 PM »
What are you talking about?  All force is dependent upon mass by definition:  F=ma, ie: a given amount of force is the ability to accelerate a given amount of mass by a given amount.
No, they aren't.
That would only apply if you are magically accelerating an object and having a force as a result.
For the vast majority of things it is actually the other way around, you apply a force and get some acceleration, i.e. a=F/m.

For example, with electrostatics, the force is proportional to charge.
You can have 2 objects with the same mass, but different charge, experiencing different forces.
In fact, you can have opposite charges and get opposite forces.
The same applies with magnetism.

"The simple fact" is that this amateur-hour experiment is invalid as proof of universal gravitation.
Why?

This presupposes that the motions of planets is caused by gravitation which is the very crux of the matter.  Hint:  it isn't:
It sure seems like it is, with plenty of satellites in orbit based upon gravity

As for your link, which you seem to have put no effort in to at all, it is just garbage.
It starts off with completely unneeded derivations for circular motions and useless quotes, and then just asserts the existence of magical higher order forces as it seems to not understand how force and motion works.

A changing force doesn't require magical higher order forces, it is simply a changing force. (and that change can simply be a change in direction).

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2019, 06:51:45 PM »
Quote
  Please note that Steve Lamoreaux, himself, only measures the Casimir Force only to a range of 6 μm, not the thousands of kilometres to millions of light-years needed to explain gravitation.
This presupposes that the motions of planets is caused by gravitation which is the very crux of the matter.  Hint:  it isn't:

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Celestial%20Dynamics%20and%20Rotational%20Forces.pdf

"Abstract: The understanding of circular motion as being conditioned by a central force coupled to a tangential velocity is questioned, by analyzing the origins of its derivation, and revising it in the light of rotational kinematics.
It is shown that one cannot stop the analysis at a force directed to the center, but has to continue it to include an infinite series
of higher order rotational forces in four perpendicular directions.
No, it is not "shown that one cannot stop the analysis at a force directed to the center".
It just used invalid logic and some meaninglesd hand-waving about "rotating acceleration" and proves nothing.

Quote from: GDg43SA
It is shown that Newton’s Moon Test and inverse-square law,
Where Does it do that?

Quote from: GDg43SA
even with the corrections of General Relativity, do not support circular and elliptical motion and lead to an erroneous expression – a problem that has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers."
I won't panic just yet: 
  • Please show references to where this "problem . . . . .  has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers".

  • Firstly you must explain in your own words why, using simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation, simply equating the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration does not lead to a stable circular orbit.

  • No planets are in either circular orbits or purely elliptical orbits anyway.

  • Even for the two-body case Einstein's GR does not allow purely elliptical orbits.

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2019, 08:40:10 PM »
Quote
  Please note that Steve Lamoreaux, himself, only measures the Casimir Force only to a range of 6 μm, not the thousands of kilometres to millions of light-years needed to explain gravitation.
This presupposes that the motions of planets is caused by gravitation which is the very crux of the matter.  Hint:  it isn't:

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Celestial%20Dynamics%20and%20Rotational%20Forces.pdf

"Abstract: The understanding of circular motion as being conditioned by a central force coupled to a tangential velocity is questioned, by analyzing the origins of its derivation, and revising it in the light of rotational kinematics.
It is shown that one cannot stop the analysis at a force directed to the center, but has to continue it to include an infinite series
of higher order rotational forces in four perpendicular directions.
No, it is not "shown that one cannot stop the analysis at a force directed to the center".
It just used invalid logic and some meaninglesd hand-waving about "rotating acceleration" and proves nothing.

Quote from: GDg43SA
It is shown that Newton’s Moon Test and inverse-square law,
Where Does it do that?

Quote from: GDg43SA
even with the corrections of General Relativity, do not support circular and elliptical motion and lead to an erroneous expression – a problem that has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers."
I won't panic just yet: 
  • Please show references to where this "problem . . . . .  has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers".

  • Firstly you must explain in your own words why, using simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation, simply equating the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration does not lead to a stable circular orbit.

  • No planets are in either circular orbits or purely elliptical orbits anyway.

  • Even for the two-body case Einstein's GR does not allow purely elliptical orbits.
You didn't address any of the arguments made in the paper.  You are the one "hand-waving"  ie: claiming "invalid logic" without actually pointing out how the logic is invalid.   All of your idiotic questions can be answered by actually reading the paper.  Here are the other two papers in the series: 

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Importance%20of%20Conic%20Section%20Size_G_Vijaya.pdf

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Original%20form%20of%20Kepler's%20Third%20Law_G_Vijaya.pdf

As for "purely ellpitical orbits" Newtonian mechanics predicts purely ellpitical or circular orbits in two-body situations, but gravitation perturbations supposedly create slight deviations in observed orbits (which brings us to the unsolvable n-body problem.) None of this is relevant to the paper which looks at two-body orbital mechanics.  The claim about Einstein needs a citation, and it is probably irrelevant to the central point of the paper, it isn't likely that a perfect ellipse is mathematically irresolvable to a central force but a slightly irregular ellipse is resolvable to a central force, if anything it is if anything more problematic to derive an irregularly elliptical orbit from a central force.

I'll give you one more chance to actually address the arguments made in the original paper I linked to or you will be promptly blocked for being a troll.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 09:03:51 PM by GDg43SA »
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2019, 08:48:42 PM »
What are you talking about?  All force is dependent upon mass by definition:  F=ma, ie: a given amount of force is the ability to accelerate a given amount of mass by a given amount.
No, they aren't.
That would only apply if you are magically accelerating an object and having a force as a result.
That sounds a hell of a lot like "gravity."

Quote
For the vast majority of things it is actually the other way around, you apply a force and get some acceleration, i.e. a=F/m.  For example, with electrostatics, the force is proportional to charge.
You can have 2 objects with the same mass, but different charge, experiencing different forces.
In fact, you can have opposite charges and get opposite forces.
The same applies with magnetism.
You're of course right, force as defined is independent and external to mass however the mass of the object is needed to calculate the net force on it if the quantity of the force is unknown.  I misunderstood the point you were trying to make against Sandokhan's pressure gravity hypothesis.
"The simple fact" is that this amateur-hour experiment is invalid as proof of universal gravitation.
Quote
Why?
Read through the thread.  You'll see the post where I addressed this.

This presupposes that the motions of planets is caused by gravitation which is the very crux of the matter.  Hint:  it isn't:

It sure seems like it is, with plenty of satellites in orbit based upon gravity
They can't be because, as proven, Newtonian orbits are impossible.

Quote
As for your link, which you seem to have put no effort in to at all, it is just garbage.
It starts off with completely unneeded derivations for circular motions and useless quotes, and then just asserts the existence of magical higher order forces as it seems to not understand how force and motion works.

A changing force doesn't require magical higher order forces, it is simply a changing force. (and that change can simply be a change in direction).

Not an argument.  You have no adequate response to the paper.  Did you not understand it or did you just not read it because you haven't addressed a single point all you've done is express subjective feelings of anger and outrage.  One more troll post like this and you will be blocked.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 09:34:01 PM by GDg43SA »
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2019, 08:52:09 PM »

I'll give you one more chance to actually address the arguments made in the original paper I linked to or you will be promptly blocked for being a troll.


Lighten up, Francis.   ::)

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2019, 09:04:20 PM »

I'll give you one more chance to actually address the arguments made in the original paper I linked to or you will be promptly blocked for being a troll.


Lighten up, Francis.   ::)
Did I say anything to you?  Mind your own business.
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2019, 09:19:39 PM »

Did I say anything to you?

Not that I know of.



Mind your own business.

I am.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 09:35:11 PM by Bullwinkle »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2019, 09:31:39 PM »

Not an argument.  You have no adequate response to the paper.  Did you not understand it or did you just not read it because you haven't addressed a single point all you've done is express subjective feelings of anger and outrage.  One more troll post like this and you will be blocked.
And you have not responded to:
I won't panic just yet: 
  • Please show references to where this "problem . . . . .  has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers".

  • Firstly you must explain in your own words why, using simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation, simply equating the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration does not lead to a stable circular orbit.

  • No planets are in either circular orbits or purely elliptical orbits anyway.

  • Even for the two-body case Einstein's GR does not allow purely elliptical orbits.
Try again!

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2019, 09:38:10 PM »

Not an argument.  You have no adequate response to the paper.  Did you not understand it or did you just not read it because you haven't addressed a single point all you've done is express subjective feelings of anger and outrage.  One more troll post like this and you will be blocked.
And you have not responded to:
I won't panic just yet: 
  • Please show references to where this "problem . . . . .  has been noticed and remedied by other independent researchers".

  • Firstly you must explain in your own words why, using simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation, simply equating the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration does not lead to a stable circular orbit.

  • No planets are in either circular orbits or purely elliptical orbits anyway.

  • Even for the two-body case Einstein's GR does not allow purely elliptical orbits.
Try again!

All of those points are addressed in the paper (which you obviously didn't read) except for 3 and 4 which I addressed above.  You have one more chance to read the paper and actually address its arguments before I block your pathetic ass.
Ignore list:

TomFoolery
Bullwinkle
Rabinoz
JackBlack
Mikey T
NotSoSkeptical

All assertions made without evidence or rational argumentation will be ignored.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2019, 09:54:15 PM »

You have one more chance to read the paper and actually address its arguments before I block your pathetic ass.

Try holding your breath until you die and then run away from home.   ::)

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2019, 10:26:04 PM »
This is hardly "proof" of gravity.
Call it what you want, but at the end of the night, it sure appears plain as day that there was some non-magnetic non-electric force which acts like the predicted globe earth gravity.
If you have some better proof for or against gravity which is more convincing than what I've demonstrated, then by all means enlighten us.
Quote
The process of rotating the apparatus causes the air to move in the direction of the rotation
You know what my friend, that's a good point.
I actually thought of that when I was doing the experiment, and turned the rotating apparatus such that the shortest  distance for the small weights to reach the big weights was in the opposite direction. If it's swirling air currents, then in this case the small weights turned opposite direction of how I turned the big weights.

And you will also notice in the original post video that when the small weight reaches the big weight, it over shoots, and swings back and forth and back and forth a few times.
If it was just air currents, why does it have the appearance of a dynamic attraction between the weights?

Quote
and that force is likely to be stronger than the minute force of gravity that is predicted to exist between those two masses:  the predicted gravitational force may even be below the frictional force due to the air, but you haven't done any of those crucial calculations.
Your confidence in my lack of calculations is charming. I did actually use one of those online gravity calculators. You can do it yourself:
Weight 1: 11.5 pounds
Weight 2: 1.5 pounds
Distance: 2 inches.
It's a very small number. But you can't say I didn't do any of the calculations.

Can you tell me about your gravity measuring experiments? You seem to have a strong opinion on the truth here so I'm assuming you've done some hands on experiments.

Or is this a case of the one guy who's done the experiment debating 3 who folks who've never touched an experiment in their lives?  ;D ;D

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2019, 10:37:19 PM »
All of those points are addressed in the paper (which you obviously didn't read) except for 3 and 4 which I addressed above.  You have one more chance to read the paper and actually address its arguments before I block your pathetic ass.
No! I asked: Firstly you must explain in your own words why, using simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation, simply equating the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration does not lead to a stable circular orbit.

But,  I guess that you can't so bye, bye.

PS I assume that the following is meant to be a joke?
Quote from: GDg43SA
I'll give you one more chance to actually address the arguments made in the original paper I linked to or you will be promptly blocked for being a troll.
    Who do you think you are? Trying to throw your weight around like you're the Big Kahuna. Get lost!

Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2019, 11:01:08 PM »
"The simple fact" is that this amateur-hour experiment is invalid as proof of universal gravitation.

Your kindness is charming. If you've done less amateurish gravity experiments, then by all means, share with us.
And even not, if you have any information which actually invalidates my experiment other than the fact that it was an amateur project (amateur simply means I didn't get paid for it).
Was there some aspect of the experiment which invalidates it from being a bonafide legitimate recreation of the Cavendish Experiment?

And I have another question: If I had calculated gravity from my experiment to 20 significant digits to agree with universal gravitation, would you still dismiss it on the grounds that the experiment if performed in another place on another day may yield another result, so therefore gravitation cannot be proved as universal?

I think you would rule out the idea of universal gravitation because no matter how many places you test it, there is still another place you haven't tested it, so it is possible the test would be different there, so therefore you will not say it's universal.

But anyway, please, my friend, it's not nice to tell someone they did it wrong or amateurishly and then not tell them how they could have done it better.
How could I have done the experiment to your liking? I mean other then faking the results to hide gravity?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2019, 11:27:24 PM »
This is hardly "proof" of gravity. 
I would not call "proof" either but it certainly is evidence of the reality of gravitation.
But real science does not claim to "prove" things only come up with theories such as "Einstein's Theory of General Relativity" supported by solid evidence.
Then many real scientists do their best to find discrepancies in that theory and that's how science moves forward.

Quote from: GDg43SA
The process of rotating the apparatus causes the air to move in the direction of the rotation and that force is likely to be stronger than the minute force of gravity that is predicted to exist between those two masses:  the predicted gravitational force may even be below the frictional force due to the air, but you haven't done any of those crucial calculations.
Really? And I suppose that all of these experiments to measure G were measuring "the frictional force due to the air"?

Here are the results all the "Cavendish type" measurements up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.
Isn't It strange how those experimenters ended with very similar results if they were all simply measuring random effects?
And the over 200 standards grade experiments performed since then?

And these qualitative demonstrations too?

The Cavendish experiment and G,
Genevieve Roeder-Hensley
     

Cavendish Experiment Revisited,
Andrew Bennett
     

Cavendish experiment, proving mass derived gravity,
flat earth debunker

The Cavendish Experiment at Bishop
O'Connell High School, Inside Science
     

DeHaan Cavendish Balance,
James DeHaan
     

Universal Gravitation Demonstration,
Nick Merrill

Stop being totally ridiculous by pretending that your know everything about experimental procedure and others know nothing!
Of course those doing these experiments know the effect of air movement.
Lab class ones are often performed in a vacuum and these simple demonstrations have to wait till all transient disturbances settle down.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2019, 11:52:11 PM »
Read through the thread.  You'll see the post where I addressed this.
I see where you dismissed it, not where you substantiated it in any meaningful way.
Try explaining why it doesn't prove gravity.
Explain what you would expect with gravity and what you would expect with alternatives and how this compares with what was observed.

They can't be because, as proven, Newtonian orbits are impossible.
Again, just a baseless assertion. No one has proven they are impossible.

Not an argument.  You have no adequate response to the paper.
You sure love your dismissals don't you?
That is an argument.
The paper is blatantly misrepresenting forces by inventing magical higher order forces and pretending something needs to provide them rather than these just being a result of the force applied changing.
Changing an applied force doesn't require any magical higher order force.

You, and the "paper" (more appropriately called insane ramblings), has absolutely nothing backing it up.
Prove that you need some magical thing to produce these magical higher order forces, rather than simply having the actual force vary.

One more troll post like this and you will be blocked.
Fine, go make your next pathetic troll post and block people.

You have one more chance to read the paper and actually address its arguments before I block your pathetic ass.
And thanks for showing you have no integrity.
You already gave him his "one more chance".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7267
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2019, 02:30:00 AM »
To the attention of the MODERATORS

Why is this kind of outburst allowed in the upper forums?

You, and the "paper" (more appropriately called insane ramblings)

This user is using the same tactics used in the all of the previous debates: if he is faced with a clear proof which shatters his beliefs, he simply dismisses the facts.

Here is the paper:

http://septclues.com/TYCHO_SSSS/Gopi%20Papers/Celestial%20Dynamics%20and%20Rotational%20Forces.pdf

The higher order terms expressed in derivatives are well-known in mechanics.

The author is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in pointing out that "attributing circular motion to a central force alone is erroneous".

Here is the proof:



This is the FULL ACCELERATION EQUATION: Newton published only the first component, the radial term, while ignoring all of the others.

Hence, the author of the paper is correct.

"But unless it is shown how any physical mechanism can possibly generate an
infinite series of tangential forces out of nothing, the whole idea deteriorates into empty speculation."

That is, the nebular hypothesis requires ROTATIONAL FORCES which were ignored by Newton. You can't get rotation out of a radial term.

The author of the paper is, again, correct.

"Newton indicated that for an object to move in a conic section, the acceleration has to be inverse-square of the distance from the focus. Motion in an ellipse, just like the circle, also involves higher derivatives of acceleration.
Therefore, assuming the equation for the ellipse, and also Kepler’s second law (areal velocity is constant), one can derive both the acceleration and its derivative – the “jerk”. This will be called the Geometrical Method. If the inverse square law is true, the same value of jerk must be obtained by using the inverse square expression for acceleration. This will be called the Inverse-Square Method. These two derivations will be compared here."

The comparison is straight forward, the calculations are in plain view.

"In other words, the inverse square law is not consistent with elliptical motion geometrically even for the first derivative beyond acceleration. It naturally cannot hold for all the higher derivatives. Hence, it is tailor-made for rectilinear acceleration alone, and does not hold for closed orbits like the ellipse. In other words, even if the inverse square law holds for the acceleration due to gravity, it does not hold for the forces necessary for a body to move in an ellipse. This means that the basis of defining an inverse-square law, and therefore, the application of such a law to planetary bodies becomes invalid."

A very clear and perfect demonstration which jackblack failed to address.


Here is how Kepler faked/forged/falsified the ENTIRE SET OF DATA IN THE NOVA ASTRONOMIC PERTAINING TO THE ORBIT OF MARS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (two consecutive messages)

Here is how Newton's law of universal gravitation is derived from the FAKED/FALSIFIED/FORGED first Keplerian law of motion:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1992933#msg1992933

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2019, 02:53:54 AM »
To the attention of the MODERATORS
This is a thread for debating the clear proof of gravity
If all you want to do is lie and insults others, do so elsewhere.
Even circular motion itself is rather off topic.

The author is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in pointing out that "attributing circular motion to a central force alone is erroneous".
No they aren't
It is a completely baseless assertion which shows a complete lack of understanding of physics.

A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion. Nothing more is needed.
Yes, the force will change over time, due to the motion of the objects, but that doesn't require any magical higher order force.

This is the FULL ACCELERATION EQUATION: Newton published only the first component, the radial term, while ignoring all of the others.
Not for circular motion.
For circular motion there is only a radial component to the acceleration. While I'm not positive it was you, I have proven this previously.

If the inverse square law is true, the same value of jerk must be obtained by using the inverse square expression for acceleration.
Another baseless assertion of the article, no better than their magical higher order forces.
Why should the inverse square law hold for jerk?
The inverse square law is for forces and the like.
If you want to complain like that, why not complain about it for velocity or distance?
There is absolutely no basis to just claim it should magically work for all derivatives.
Do you know why?
If it was going to be true, why shouldn't it hold for the 0th derivative, i.e. the function itself?
That would require distance to be inversely proportional to distance squared. That clearly makes no sense.

But that seems to be all the author of the nonsense has, baseless assertions.


A very clear and perfect demonstration which jackblack failed to address.
One based upon pure nonsense.
I don't need to go down into the multiple layers of nonsense. Anything built upon the first bit of nonsense falls when the first bit of nonsense does.


Now, care to do what the author should have done and admit it is all baseless garbage, or try and substantiate it?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7267
Re: I proved gravity
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2019, 03:38:57 AM »
A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion.

It cannot be.

What you are saying is that the nebular motion started by itself, based only on attractive gravity.

This cannot be so, since the radial component does not cause torque, a force needed to start the rotation of the nebula.

What force caused the nebula TO ROTATE? This is what you are feverishly avoiding to answer.

So, a huge misrepresentation your part: the radial component cannot cause rotation, only torque can do so, that is, the other components of the acceleration equation must come into play.

Newton presented to the public only the first component.

For circular motion there is only a radial component to the acceleration.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Newton deviously substituted the orbital velocity for the tangential velocity.

But the orbital velocity and the tangential velocity can never be equal at all, which is what Newton assumed in the first place.

Here is the complete demonstration of this fact:

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/milesmathis_com/avr.html

It is very easy now to apply these facts to the supposed elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun.


"Newton assigned the centripetal acceleration to gravity and the tangential velocity to the orbiting body itself. That is, the tangential velocity is not caused by the gravitational field. How could it be? It is perpendicular to that field, whether the field is rectilinear or curved. It is stated explicitly that the earth had this velocity before it entered the orbit. Newton calls it the body's "innate motion."

All orbits, whether elliptical or circular, are assumed by historical and current theory to be composed of only two motions, a centripetal acceleration caused by gravity, and a velocity due to the orbiter’s “innate motion.”

The orbiter must retain its innate motion throughout the orbit, no matter the shape of the orbit. If it did not, then its innate motion would dissipate. If it dissipated, the orbit would not be stable. Therefore, the orbiter always retains its innate motion over each and every differential. If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places.

In a nutshell, the orbital velocity describes an arc or curved line. It is the vector addition of the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration, over the same interval. Unfortunately, contemporary physics has forgotten his distinction. It usually conflates orbital velocity and tangential velocity. But the tangential velocity does not curve. It is a straight-line vector with its tail at the tangent. It does not curve even at the limit. It only gets very small at the limit. By going to the limit or to Newton's ultimate interval we do not curve the tangential velocity, we straighten out the arc. That is to say, we straighten out the orbital velocity so that we can apply a vector addition to it, putting it in the same equation as the straight tangential velocity.

To make the ellipse work, you have to vary not only the orbital velocity, but also the tangential velocity. To get the correct shape and curvature to the orbit, you have to vary the object's innate motion. But the object's innate motion cannot vary. The object is not self-propelled. It cannot cause forces upon itself, for the convenience of theorists or diagrams. Celestial bodies have one innate motion, and only one, and it cannot vary.

The usual answer to this is to show a summing of potential and kinetic energies in a closed loop and prove mathematically that all energy is conserved. But this fails to address the issue. I am not complaining here about a sum or an integral. Mathematically I am pointing at differentials. If you look at individual motions in any orbit that has three or more bodies, you will find that the differentials show a variation in the tangential velocity of the orbiting body. But natural bodies like planets and stars and moons cannot vary their tangential velocites on demand of the math. As I said, they are not self-propelled. They cannot make any corrections. If the differentials are showing a variation, this variation must be explained by an external force. Gravitational theory gives us no force to explain it."

"But because he later failed to differentiate between the tangential velocity and the orbital velocity, both his and Kepler's analyses of orbits have come down to us hiding magnificent messes.

An analysis of the differentials must show a variation in the tangential velocity of all orbiters, in order to correct for forces outside the main two. But orbiters cannot vary this velocity. They are not self-propelled. Newton told us that this tangential velocity was innate; an innate motion cannot vary. We have not shown any mechanism or cause of this variance, therefore we cannot let it vary. To put it another way, the variance is totally unexplained and unsupported. It has been covered up, possibly on purpose.

What this means is that orbital mechanics is just magic.

Kepler's ellipse has the same hidden problem, a problem caused by the general ignorance of the difference between orbital and tangential velocity. Kepler's ellipse doesn't work mechanically, since his second focus is uninhabited. The orbiter is forced to vary its tangential velocity to suit the math of the summed circuit, but no explanation of how it could do this is offered."


NOW, HERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE EARTH COULD NOT POSSIBLY FOLLOW AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT ABOUND THE SUN.

The unit measuring rod thus appears a little shortened in relation to the system of co-ordinates by the presence of the gravitational field, if the rod is laid along a radius. With the tangential position, therefore, the gravitational field of the point of mass has no influence on the length of a rod.

A. Einstein (The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity, 1916)

Even in the catastrophically flawed GTR, we are told that if you have a point gravitational source lengths are contracted in the direction of the source and are not contracted normal to that direction.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)


"But in the ellipse, or any real orbit, we must continue to monitor the old tangential velocity, since we cannot allow it to vary without giving a mechanical explanation of that variation. If we see it varying in the ellipse, as I have shown, then we must ask how a planet can vary its innate motion to suit an orbit. How can either the planet itself, or the gravitational field, cause that velocity to vary? The planet cannot, because it is not self-propelled or self-correcting. The gravitational field cannot, because the gravitational field has no mechanism to influence that vector. Even Einstein admitted that the gravitational field had no influence at the tangent."

While the radial motion components are a function of the gravitational force between the objects, tangential velocities are not affected by gravitation.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_center_of_mass_tangential_motion.htm#.VyiCp9R961v


The kinetic energy K of a planet is ½mv², where v is the planet's tangential velocity.

"An analysis of the differentials must show a variation in the tangential velocity of all orbiters, in order to correct for forces outside the main two. But orbiters cannot vary this velocity. They are not self-propelled. Newton told us that this tangential velocity was innate; an innate motion cannot vary. We have not shown any mechanism or cause of this variance, therefore we cannot let it vary. To put it another way, the variance is totally unexplained and unsupported. It has been covered up, possibly on purpose.

What this means is that orbital mechanics is just magic."


How the earth was captured by the sun? How is an orbit like this created? How is any planetary orbit created? The textbooks never go there. By giving us the ball-on-a-string illustration, the book leaves the impression that the analogy is complete; that is, that the tangential velocity and the acceleration are conceptually connected in both instances. We are left with a fait accompli: since the two motions are tied to one another with the ball on a string, the two motions must be tied in the earth/sun example, and there is nothing to explain. But there is an awful lot to explain. To start with, in reality an orbit like this creates a hairline balance of two independent motions. The tangential motion and the centripetal motion must be perfectly balanced or the orbit will deteriorate immediately in one direction or another (inward or outward). Any satellite engineer knows this. There is one perfect distance that creates a stable orbit for a given velocity. Any other orbit requires the satellite to speed up or slow down—to make corrections. Obviously, the earth cannot make any corrections. It is not self-propelled. It cannot speed up or slow down. Therefore it must be taken to its optimum distance and kept there.

Now, think of the earth's orbit for a moment. Let's work backwards and see if we can imagine how the earth might get to that optimum distance, with just the optimum tangential velocity. If you reverse time, and conceptually back the earth out of orbit, you see that the only way you can do so is if you accelerate it out of there. If you keep the same velocity, it stays in orbit. If you decelerate, then it crashes into the sun. So you must accelerate the earth out of the orbit. But that means that unless the earth was ejected by the sun, it had to decelerate to reach its present position. If it is coming from outer space into the field of the sun, it must somehow decelerate in order to fall into its current position. But how can an object entering a gravitational field decelerate? It is getting closer to the sun: it should be accelerating. The only possibility appears to be a fortunate collision that accidentally throws it into the perfect spot. Even a planet ejected by the sun cannot reach any possible orbit, without a collision, since an ejected planet will not have any velocity tangential to the sun. There is no way to eject an object from the center of its future orbit with a velocity tangential to that orbit.

So, the unavoidable implication of historical theory is that all orbits must have been created by fortuitous collisions, either by planets arriving from outer space or being ejected by the sun. The problem is that planets arriving in orbits immediately after collisions are going to be damaged planets. Most likely they are going to be out of round. They are going to be missing chunks. This is a problem since imperfect planets create perturbations in orbits. Spins and wobbles are created, which cause uneven velocities and uneven forces. This should be fatal since the sort of orbit described by current theory is not correctable. There is no margin of error. Either the forces balance or they do not. If they do not, then the orbit should not be stable.

Some will interrupt here to point out that current theory provides that the earth was formed from a solar disc. It was not captured or ejected; it was simply always there, in some form. It congealed out of the nebula. But this answers nothing, for current theory fails to explain how this primordial disc of pre-planets or planetoids achieved its tangential motion in the first place (see below).

Gravitational theory provides absolutely no mechanism, not even one as magical as gravity, to explain rotational motion in a gravitational field. It is the same question as to why galaxies rotate like wheels: they just do. We have a partial answer for why the stars don’t fly out into space: gravity. But we have no answer at all for why the stars move sideways to the gravitational field of the galaxy. If they weren’t captured, what set them in motion? The pat answer is “a spinning gravitational field”, but if you ask how a gravitational field imparts tangential velocity you get no answer. It is implied that the spin of the sun about its own axis somehow set the whole solar system to spinning, but this is mystical in the extreme. Almost no one thinks that the moon’s orbit is caused by the rotation of the earth about its own axis. No one thinks this because there is no mechanism to link the rotation of the earth to the orbit of the moon. There is no mechanism to link the orbit of the solar disc to the spin of the sun either, and yet it is accepted at face value.

Meaning that if we have the same planet with the same initial velocity and we want to put it into a circular orbit, where do we put it? Turns out that the circle is completely outside the ellipse, and that it has a lot greater area. Remember that the only way we can explain the planet in ellipse beginning to dive toward the sun as we move it past aphelion is that its velocity is not great enough to keep it in circular orbit."


Remember, we find ourselves AT THE APHELION POINT WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD CANNOT INFLUENCE THE TANGENTIAL VELOCITY OF THE PLANET.


"Therefore, to put it into a stable circular orbit, we must move it further away from the sun at aphelion. If we do that then this distance becomes the radius of the circle, and we have our circular orbit. As you can see from this simple illustration, the path of the ellipse never crosses the path of the "equivalent" circle. If that is true, then the planet in ellipse can never reach a point where its perpendicular velocity overcomes the centripetal acceleration produced by the gravitational field. It never achieves a temporary escape velocity. No, it simply spirals into the sun. Its orbital velocity increases, yes. The "orbital velocity" continues to increase until the planet burns up in the sun's corona."



At both the aphelion and the perihelion points, there is no gravitational interaction between the sun and the tangential velocity of a planet.

The sun could not capture any planet at both the aphelion and the perihelion points.

It is as simple as that.

That is why the elliptical orbit model falls apart from the very start.