Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Feb 29, 2016.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Not fully, no, but I'd argue you do have a significant amount of it.

    Yes, you are right! I indeed took no stand on the statement you initially quoted (if you don't count it needing further clarifications before being meaning anything), meaning your demands I give evidence were indeed uncalled for. I'm glad you see this now.

    Pointing out the question is gibberish has no value? Well, if that's indicative of what you consider valuable or not, that's saying a lot more about you than me.

    Me, drifting? Have you even read anything nebel has been contributing in this thread? If anything, I'm constantly hammering the same crucial point nebel refuses to address properly.

    Your second post in this thread was a direct response to mine, unreasonably demanding all kinds of thing from me. Your third post ended with asking the already-explained-as-gibberish question nebel posted, and when I asked the same clarification as I did nebel, you refused to respond. Just like how I'm still waiting for that list of "gravity related parameters" you brought up. How is that for "no value" and "drifting"? Yes, perhaps you should stay away from me; I see very little use (dare I say: value?) in the alternative if this is your modus operandi.

    Helpful tip, seeing as you are obviously new here: the science sections are my main stomping, so perhaps you should stick to this section of the forum instead, in order to stay as far away from me as you want.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Thanks for the compliment, Origin! Although admittedly, I myself would formulate it differently: I'm only slightly less ignorant than most.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    To be completely truthful, I was aware of the convention-trouble lurking there from the get-go, which is specifically why I didn't make any hard statements regarding it. (And which is why I know with all the certainty in the world that I indeed haven't, no matter what some other posters might claim.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It is a pity that this thread keeps getting reset back to error-prone ideas about gravity.
    It could be an interesting thread if we were to actually talk science.
    Alas, that's why it's in the PseudoScience subbie.
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Are you saying this thread has become a waste of time? I've heard that apparently I'm the main culprit!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Only the science-free parts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I am just reminding you of your missed opportunities to drag down contributors. to change you negative downward trend, to put some real numbers into your science arguments (or pictures).
     
  11. Iskcon Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    No no, you don't have to stomp around in science section. A mild tapping with data and proper mainstream citation/explanation is more forceful than any verbose lengthy post.

    Sorry to say, I have seen no post from you in this thread, which could be termed as meaningful science. If you want to prove me wrong, just point out a single post of yours wherein you contributed something meaningful! And mind you, your silence on this point will be interpreted as that you have none.

    And by the way irrespective of what nebel means, when we say gravity is strong or weak without any further reference, then in GR it is meant as curvature of spacetime and in Newtonian it is meant as gravitational acceleration (both represent field). The same holds good for electricity and magnetism. Potential is a referenced based quantity, more meaningful is potential difference. Standard referencing is zero at infinity, negative for attractive force field and positive for repulsive. So when X says gravity is strong, it is not about potential, unless specified.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    You'll notice that I miss much such opportunities: because it's not my goal. If you got that idea, perhaps you should look at yourself first; are you sure it's not you that causing this "dragging down"? Perhaps, if you read contributions made by others posters more closely, they contain hints which one of us two is causing it.

    I haven't made a single science argument in this thread, because we haven't gotten to that yet. You first need to clarify your question, which you have failed to do for 400+ posts now. First demonstrate you can ask a scientific question, and then you may receive a scientific response.
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Oh, I know I don't have to.

    Well, as I just told nebel: first you ask a scientific question, and not gibberish. How can I respond with data and proper mainstream citation/explanation if the question cannot be understood/is meaningless?

    Huh, funny, nebel said the same thing, so I'll give the same answer: "I haven't made a single science argument in this thread, because we haven't gotten to that yet. You first need to clarify your question".

    Just look at the thread nebel was cross-posting from earlier; my main contributions to the discussion are there. Take any post where I ask for clarification on the question. Should be easy enough to find one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But perhaps you want to restrict it to this thread (which is a bit unfair), but sure, why not? Post #293 is nice, but I suppose that's not the kind of meaningful contribution you are talking about.

    Post #400 in this thread contains an explicit question for clarification: "More gravity what? Field? Force? Potential?" Challenge met.

    Who is this "we" you are talking about?

    And if you take that meaning, then nebel is 100% wrong with his statement, isn't he? But he could be (somewhat) right, if he meant potential, right? You see, I like giving people the benefit of the doubt. So instead of just saying "nebel is 100% wrong, next!", perhaps you should ask him for clarification, to make sure nebel is using the same meaning as you do... Wait... One of us has been doing just that for quite some time now. But apparently, that's not allowed, and one must make assumptions that every layperson knows about scientific conventions instead!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Good point. Perhaps nebel meant the difference in potential. Maybe you should go and ask him.

    And what about "non-standard referencing"? Have you asked nebel if he's using "standard referencing" or not? You yourself didn't seem to sure about it in post #309! Why do you assume nebel does, and thus that he is wrong? Isn't it much more likely he doesn't know this detail, and thus got his broad statement wrong, rather than the other way around? Why are you so set on proving nebel wrong? At least I am trying to understand what he means, before doing any such thing!

    nebel has admitted to not knowing all the intricate details about gravity; why do you expect him to know that specifically, without asking him first, especially because a misunderstanding there could explain many of his otherwise-wrong statements?

    So Iskcon, now please explain to me: when you said "is gravity highest at the centre of the earth or not?" in post #338, you must have meant "gravitational acceleration", right? Well, is it? Why don't you answer your own posed question and contribute some scientific value to the thread, so that nebel finally gets his authoritative answer and can move on from that question to more exciting things?

    Oh, and any change of you showing some intellectual honesty and addressing any other parts of my post?
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    nothing should prevents you from continuing doing that*, not even the "pseudo" classification, nor nebel's occasional seemingly mal apropos analogies.
    *see the first pages.
     
  15. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    hear hear! added: any thread.
     
  16. Iskcon Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    432 posts and you could not make a single science argument! Speaks volume about your ability to engage meaningfully.

    [I glanced at the full thread, there are posters like Janus, Dave, Origin, Qreeus, Exchemist, James, all of them have contributed with meaningful science description, with pictorial representation, so your claim that we haven't gotten to that yet, falls flat. Your focus apparently is more on degrading nebel than anything else.]

    Take care! And please don't bother to respond with another meaningless lengthy post.
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Well, I guess that makes three of us, then!
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    I haven't been active in this thread from the start, so your number is misleading. Post #211 was my first contribution.

    You seem to forget that nebel is the one with the inability to engage meaningfully (at least regarding the point in question). Me not making "a single science argument" is due to him not asking a scientific question.

    No, my focus was in trying to help nebel ask a meaningful question. In the end, he is the one who is, as you say, "falling flat" when it comes to engaging in meaningful science discussion. Perhaps after he asks a meaningful question, I can contribute on that point in a way you like. But until that happens, all your criticism about my failings are actually criticisms of nebel.

    And have you looked in a mirror recently? Care to do an honest analysis of your own performance in this thread?

    You must be confusing me with somebody else?
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    You have a very rose coloured view of yourself. have you found any posts where nebel called posters of google images " thieves", ? branded any one as morally corrupt? intellectually dishonest? really, you curing your inability to self- analyze would be a first step in the right direction.
     
  20. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    DaveC426913 said:
    S2. gravity in empty shell:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    1 the level of zero gravity at infinity
    2 areas traced by the depressing ball , showing depth, strength of spacetime warp
    3 hollow spherical mass
    4 interior g gradient
    6 areas where 0 g occurs

    this was Dave C426913's work, re-tabulating nebel's explanations. thank you again!
    when Dave here treated generic gravity in empty shells, did he understand, or should he have understood the unspecified gravity as
    a) a field?
    b) strength?
    c) the potential?
    d) other?
    without correcting the set up?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So, here's an example of why this fails:
    The "slope" at 4 is infinite.


    Gravity goes from n to 0 in zero distance.
    You would literally be able to see an artifact of gravity with that degree of slope.

    It also means that gravity is not a function of distance. Since such a function cannot, by definition, have a vertical line.

    The vertical line means that, at that distance, (defined by 4), gravity takes on ALL the values. Gravity does not have a unique value at that distance.

    The graph represents a scenario that is physically impossible.
     
  22. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    This could be part of the wall of a zero thickness sphere of a shell theorem discussion or of the expanding sphere in the ALMA thread, containing all the matter of the universe, not in nature but in established theories, no fail here, an alternate of the graph was offered with a shell of some thickness, a slight slope.
    The discussion is of course is not about the vertical line but the gravity conditions in the empty inside cavity, #32, as also the ~ empty space in the free floating ring in the daily science article. post #415. so,
    In cavity # 32 there is no measurable gravity. because near inner gravity in #4 from small mass, balances out with gravity from large mass a distance. so
    no measurable gravity , no strength of gravity. but
    2 gravity fields overlapping, but cancelling?
    potential? since you need no lifting force inside is there a potential or not?
    since the struggle to get to infinity only starts at the surface#4 ?
    If there is overlapping gravity fields in the empty cavity would there be time dilation?
    Time dilation with no gravity/ work potential?
    thank you.
    PS. generally, if inside facing gravity fields cancel, can not be measured, can it not be said, that there is no inside gravity in some aspects.? , all gravity is outside; acting to infinity as a field, in varying strength, as work to do. ---or?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Have you too tried looking in a mirror recently?

    Have you found any posts where somebody took an image, didn't attribute the creator, lied about its copyright status, put words in the mouth of said creator to try and absolve himself, all the while claiming to want to give the creator all the credit he deserves?

    Also, I tried apologizing, but you wouldn't have any of it. So yeah, me calling you a thief is apparently something you want. I mean, you do bring it up all the time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How does you not having pointed such things out in others have any relation to whether you are such things yourself? I, for example, haven't called you ugly. Does that mean I am a beauty pageant winner?

    Wow. Just wow... Please refer back to the first sentence of this response.
     

Share This Page