Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

So you can't read?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You said the things I speak of are religious ideas. Are you saying the Cavendish experiment is a religious lie and doesn't confirm the forces predicted by Newton?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi CaptBork.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suggest you and MD sort out what you think it is that is supposedly 'pulling' the two masses together, as distinct to being 'forced' together by (as Einstein has it) the 'curvature of spacetime' which geometrically models his gravity effect of masses being MOVED towards each other by following spacetiume geodesics and NOT being 'pulled/attracted' towards each other by some abstract 'stretched rubber strap' which is trying to 'contract' or whatever he imagined was the entity involved in his "action at a Distance" abstract model.

If you two can agree that 'pull/attract' is not the proper PHYSICS terminology to explain what is happening and what is moving/redirecting the two masses geodesics towards each other, then you can go from there without being already at cross-purposes because of wrong terminology/analogy impressions. Enjoy your further discussion points, guys!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, when a force exerted between two bodies points inwards towards the radial center between them, that's an attraction by definition. Gravity is an attractive force. Water is wet. If someone has a doubt in such basic concepts, they have no business wasting theirs or anyone else's time on a science forum.

 

Oh and Undefined, GR talks about far more than just redirecting things in motion. If you jump off a tall building, GR does indeed predict that you will fall, acquire speed, and hit the ground very hard.

 

Hi again, CaptB!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, it's an 'attraction' only in ordinary 'conventional usage' language sense, not physics per se. Please see my posts #89 and #93 to Sarkus previous page for the full context.

Any physicist will tell you that a 'volumetric vacuum' doesn't 'suck', it only has nothing with which to oppose a force that tends to 'push' something 'into' that volumetric vacuum volume region. No 'suck' forces, only balanced 'push' forces and/or IMbalanced 'push forces'. Nothing else is observed in nature.

Only in ordinary/philosophical contexts does 'attraction' and 'suck' have any 'meaning', not in physics context per se.

That is trivial extension/understanding of what the meaning of the original context/explanation was about, involving the two bodies in motion or in orbit or hanging beside each other etc, covering all cases. The 'falling' is already inherent in the redirecting inertial paths into orbital and falling towards another body etc etc explanation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's nonsense. Nothing in physics says it's illegitimate to talk about electrostatic attractions between opposite charges, or any other number of situations where an attractive force is seen. If it makes you happy, you can come up with whatever alternative POV you like where things only push, never pull, but at best it's far messier than the standard picture accepted by virtually all physicists in which both attractive and repulsive forces are at work in nature.

 

Hi ho again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Until we identify the actual force entities and how they couple/act, we can't call it 'attraction' except in some loose sense of the the two 'oppositely charged energy-space features' are caused by some forces/forces (which we call gravity, e-m etc) to move towards each other. That's it. At no stage has actual 'sucking' or 'attraction' cased anything. The 'attraction' and 'sucking' is merely an 'impression' in ordinary sense, not an independently identified actual physical agent or 'action' per se. The only physical agent or 'action' (not just impressions about the observed motion towards each other) is by the forces tending to move/push/curve/curl or otherwise direct/redirect the two towards each other.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: I can't say any more than that at this time, since this is part of the ToE explanations as to what the agents/entities and forces/actions are in gravity and e-m et al. So I'll leave it at that and read your further discussions with MD with interest. Cheers, CptBork, MD, everyone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By the exact same logic, you could argue that there's no such thing as repulsion, but instead certain objects merely attract each other more weakly than the attraction they feel to objects pulling them apart from opposite sides. You don't have logical or experimental grounds to exclude attractive forces from nature any more than you do to exclude repulsive forces.

 

Hi Cpt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Repulsion is also a direct consequences of objects/features PUSHING other objects/features away from each other and/or their occupied locations (think 'degeneracy PRESSURE etc).

The 'repulsion' impression in ordinary language/usage is ALSO directly applicable/derivable from that physics observation of MUTUALLY PUSHING forces tending to separate objects/features. Period.

It is only the 'attraction/sucking' impressions in the ordinary language/usage that is NOT directly derivable from the observed physical forces/phenomena, as explained, which is so far only seen to be 'pushing' (and hence the 'repulsive' impression in both the ordinary and the physics lexicon/usage/sense).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There certainly is without any shadow of doubt an attraction between masses, and this has been observed since we climbed out of the Oceans up onto land.....
Newtonian mechanics describe this attraction, without giving it a cause....and afterall that is the precise job of physics.
In the Newtonian model, we know what happens, and have taken advantage of it for more then 300 years, including most space missions.

GR describes what happens in a different format, with more precision [mass curving space/time] and give a reason why it happens.

The Universe is a weird and wonderful place and seemingly magical forces and happenings will always present themselves, until we can work out the methodology and reasoning behind such observations, and impart a reasonable explanation.

The Catholic church now recognise both the BB and Evolution of life, due to the overwhelming observational evidence supporting both theories.
They then put both down to the work of God/magic, because as yet science are unable to give a why or a how.
But they are getting there.

 

Totally correct.
This is no more then a semantic argument at the most silliest level, and illustrates the frustrations that our alternative theorists are confronted with. As the only outlet they have, science forums such as this, must bare and confront their idiotic claims.
Gravity sucks/pulls in general and as a broad rule, but when other forces come into play pushes can be obtained ...eg: Gravity assists, the outward movement of the Moon.

I think we need to start at the most basic level to convince our alternative pseudoscience friends.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOcY37oGhj8

 

Or by your reasoning, it could also be that repulsion is caused by objects coming close together resulting in a reduced mutual attraction, as compared to forces attracting them away from each other and towards other objects (think TENSION etc.). This is the argument you use to dismiss attractive forces even in cases where there's no evidence of any external forces pushing anything.

The 'attraction' impression in ordinary language/usage is ALSO directly applicable/derivable from physics observations of MUTUALLY ATTRACTING forces tending to group objects/features. Period.

 

For the third time, what gives magnets their attractive force?

What makes gravity so different from magnetism that it can't also be an attractive force?

You mean you fail to comprehend the explanations given in the NASA video I posted.

OK wise guy:

What is the velocity of the Earth sideways, away from the Sun?

What gives the Earth the energy to travel sideways?

Why isn't earth orbiting in the opposite direction?

What prevents the Earth from leaving the solar system?

What grade level covers gravity?

 

Joking/sarcasm, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

MotorDaddy denies gravity and relativity. RealityCheck and Farside deny relativity and the constancy of light. Photozo denies climate science. wellwisher denies climate science and evolution. Jan denies evolution. leopold denies abiogenesis. I've forgotten who denies the extinction of dinosaurs before humans appeared. And so on.

The common theme: science is a demon.

Put it together and you have all of the subject matter for an ICR website.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can there be any other possible connection?

 

I wanted to account for his knowledge of the correct answer to the free credit question I asked at the end. He's a "special student" so he gets graded on a curve.

 

Well look on the bright side....At least we can claim keeping all the anti anti anti everything brigade in one tight place, rather then contaminating students and lay people on the outside.....

 

I don't use a reciprocal view conventions to describe the actual forces/factors at play, only the actual effective actions and consequences in terms of 'balance' between forces at play. When you try to expand a rubber band, the e-m forces RESIST forces trying to tear them apart. Inertial forces which through spinning the band will shred it due to the self-same inertia inherent to INSIDE the mass itself which pushes out and away from the 'bound states' they were in. In such cases it is the bound state masses which push out and away due to their motional states (spin) effects on the bonds.

The bonds themselves are real contiguous field connections which have their own contiguous connections which bring/keep them together to lower-energy configurational states, not because their constituent matter/energy 'attracted' each other, but because the interplay of energies/motional dynamics of their environment and their own interaction/exchanges with it causes them to LOSE motional-separation tendency (internal OSCILLATIONS/VIBRATIONS inertial force) which would otherwise push them apart if they did not lose excess.

So the 'attraction' in TENSION is actually an resultant of interplay of energy flux between the formation/configuration of the particle/feature and the energy-space environment/processes which seek the lowest energy state and lose all excess energy/mass to the energy-space environment/processes from which they 'precipitated' as the least energy states of those features/configurations. The reason why the rubber band stays together and tends to resist stretching is because the lower energy state is the 'least action' configuration with respect to all the energy-space forces which would otherwise act to push apart (disintegrate) that configuration if the internal motional INERTIAL/KINETIC energy content was too great for that configuration to persist.

Again, mutually attracting is a point of view impression, not an actual 'action' resolvable back to known forces which 'pull/attract', but which push and otherwise involve motional states that tend to be either in balance with the energy-space environment of forces (so they stay put) or in NON-balance suchn thatb they are forced together by external interaction with the environment energy-space conditions/processes (eg, as in gravity forces the masses to follow trajectories which are either balanced by inertial forces (orbits) or not balanced thus and so 'fall towards each other by dint of their following energy-space conditions forcing them into the converging trajectories).

Sorry, mate, that's all I've time for now. Good night.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And again, I've already established that you can take the POV that everything attracts, repels, or that nature is capable of both, you've failed to make any logical distinction that would be noticeable in practice. On the other hand, you try to argue that the only "known" forces in nature are pushes, which shows complete disregard for everything we know about gravity and the three nuclear forces. Your concept doesn't even explain what holds a string together under tension- if pushes were all nature were capable of, and this was so blatantly obvious, then it's also blatantly obvious that the string would rip apart with zero resistance. Yeah, I get that you've got your pet theory where things only push, but I'm not about to substitute that for hundreds of years of empirical evidence.