Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

I just lost a big long reply and it's horrible! So until I calm down I'll just reply to this.

The sun is like an expanding balloon, and the earth is on the outside of the balloon. The sun is getting less dense, it is increasing the volume of its mass. That means the balloon is increasing in volume. That means the earth is getting further away from the center of the sun. The radius is increasing in distance. The sun rotates. As the sun rotates and increases in volume the earth accelerates its rotational velocity about the sun. It has to, because it is now at a greater radius, which means the earth would have to travel a greater distance in the same time. Earth's don't increase the distance they travel in space per interval of time for no reason. It requires force to accelerate the speed of the earth.

The earth is not falling to the sun, the earth is being forced away. If you think the earth is falling to the sun, tell me the rate at which it is getting closer? Ooops, what's that you say? You say it isn't getting closer it's getting further away? There goes your theory that the earth is falling to the sun. How could that be when it is getting further away?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It might be worth noting that Einstein referred to "gravitational attraction" possibly using the words "gravitational collapse" instead.

I'll quote only one example [ as it was relevant in another thread for another purpose] and see if I can find others:

wiki ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor.
To say that the phenomena is one of attraction may be misleading if really it is meant to refer to space collapsing.

Of course the collapsing of spacial volume [gravitational collapse] is a different way of looking at the same phenomena.
The wiki article on gravitational collapse appears to be far from a thorough or complete work so I have not quoted from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse

Perhaps someone who is very familiar with General relativity may venture an opinion?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ball is on the beach, it is not falling. It is not accelerating. It is not changing velocity. The velocity is 0 m/s from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. It did not fall. It did not free fall, it did not get closer to the center of the earth, it just stayed on the beach!

That's what I said, it was on the beach. You're the one talking about falling.

Dynamic force? That has a time component? Is dynamic force represented as f*t?

Again, you are the one that mentioned dynamics.

What is "g"?

Free to move meaning no opposing force?

Not free to move as in there is an opposing force? Is there any linearity in the acceleration rate and the opposing force?

So really it's not two forces, it's just two cases of one force? So one cause of force. Dynamic sounds a lot like change to me. Are you implying force has change?

What is "g"? The bible states God created the earth. Newton claimed apples attract other apples. Clinton claimed he didn't have..., ah, you know the deal!

What is "g" and what distance did the ball move?

So gravity is an energy potential? How much potential energy does a beach ball have while it's on the beach, 9.8 m/s^2?

So the potential energy of the ball and the earth is 9.8 m/s^2?

What type of action? How does it act? Does it reach out and physically hold the ball to the beach? Is it a magnet? Is it sticky like glue? What is it?

What is "g"?

I didn't say the earth traveled in one direction, I said one direction is one direction, not 29 directions. I can assure you that you haven't a clue about direction! But that's an entirely different thread. I think Tach was confused about this very topic. But then Tach was always confused.

The direction of travel of the car in space is not a question asked to those observing, it is a statement of fact!

You are talking about the car's direction of travel, and then you switch to what I claim the car is doing? The car is traveling in space, whether I am there or not!

But the beach ball did not travel 9.8 meters/second. Where do you get 9.8 m/s when the ball clearly did not move a distance?

Right, it didn't move. It didn't fall. It didn't accelerate. It didn't 9.8 anything!

So you have no clue as to whether the ship is moving, just whether you are moving in the ship?

What if it's not in free fall? How can you tell if something is in free fall? How do you know its initial velocity? Are you saying time is absolute?

Newton didn't eliminate the magic, he expanded on it! He set in stone that rocks magically attract other rocks. Then he claimed:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A point of clarity: the earth is not moving further away due to the expansion of the sun, but due to the loss of mass of the sun. And it is this loss of mass that is currently also causing the expansion of the sun.

Why do you assume it is travelling a greater distance in the same time?
Normally when objects move into a higher orbit their orbital period increases, and they actually slow down in terms of km/s.
A satellite in Low Earth Orbit typically orbits at 100-200km altitude from earth's surface with a speed of around 7.5 km/s, whereas a Geosynchronous orbit is at c.3km/s.
So not only is it a larger distance to travel, but it travels slower.

It's called the force of gravity.
As the force exerted by the sun lessens (due to reduction of mass), the earth moves to a higher orbit.

It is not being forced away, per se, it is just not being held in its orbit as strongly. Hence it continually moves slowly into higher orbits.
But it is also falling into the sun, as this is what it means to orbit. This is not "falling" as in getting closer, but in terms of where the direction of acceleration is pointing. I.e. Toward the centre of the sun.

Its called orbital mechanics. Falling is with reference to the line of acceleration.
Imagine a bullet that is fired horizontally on earth, and ignore air resistance...
The bullet travels along but, due to gravity, gradually falls to the floor. Okay so far?
Now imagine that the bullet is fired so fast that, as it falls to the floor due to gravity, the curvature of the earth means that it actually isn't getting any closer to the floor. This is what it means to orbit: you fall toward the earth, but you are travelling with such velocity across the surface that the earth's curvature means you never get any closer to it.

 

A point of clarity for you:

You are trying to explain to me how gravity works using methods known to end up at a dead end. Do you really expect me to follow you to a dead end, and then when we get there you tap dance and BS? Not likely! Your methods are wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be any search for the truth.

 

Dead end for what? Why do you think they end up there? And known by who to end up there?

 

What is "g"?

 

It is the relationship between a body's weight and its mass.
g due to Earth's gravitational pull is 9.81 m/s^2. A 1kg mass has a weight of 9.81 Newtons (which has units of Kg m/s^2).

 

What makes you think humans and other living things have any choice in what they do? How do you know it's not predetermined chemical reactions in your brain that make you want things and automatically trigger the various systems in your body to go about obtaining them? How do you know we're not just fancy, ultra-sophisticated computers that can only be reasonably predictable when you isolate a few brain cells at a time?

You speak as if thunderstorms and ticking clocks are in perfect agreement with the laws of gravity, but claim living creatures are able to defy it at will. The only difference I can see between these three cases is that the former two are less complex phenomena and easier to predict than organic life, but all three can be shown to never do anything more than react to existing stimuli, which is something you seem to deny.

Does gravity need to be defied for chemicals to mix and react? No. Gravity doesn't need to be defied for air molecules to stack up and reach into the upper atmosphere, either.

Gravity alone doesn't explain why chemical reactions occur, and chemical reactions are necessary for there to be any life and for life to do anything resembling the act of living.

 

What is "weight"?

 

Here is an explanation from NASA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d__hN6nqi-k#t=122

 

Weight is the force on an object, usually due to gravity. I say usually as it could also be due to centrifugal forces (e.g. as experienced by people going round corners rather quickly) and/or others.

 

So your previous statement that "g" is the relationship between a body's weight and its mass can be restated as "g" is the relationship between a body's force on an object (usually due to gravity) and its mass. So "g" is derived from force and mass. Where does the 9.8 m/s^2 come into play, as that is a unit of acceleration, which is a rate of change of velocity? What is the 9.8? Where does that number come from?

 

Acceleration due to gravity, g, can be calculated from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
http://www.leydenscience.org/physics/gravitation/satgrav.htm

You can calculate g for Jupiter, the Sun, Moon, Phobos, even for you.

 

Force and mass are the derivatives of "g" according to Sarkus. Where does acceleration come into play with "g" if "g" is the relationship between a body's force on an object (usually due to gravity) and its mass?

 

F=mg does not require that the body is in motion.

g is the gravitational potential acting on m to produce F.

If the object is free to fall, then F=ma applies, that is, it will accelerate due to the applied force, in the amount a=g.

If the object is on the ground, then g acts on m to produce a force F onto the ground, in the amount F=mg. It's identical to the weight of the object.

Once again: it comes from the Universal Law of Gravitation: F = G x mass of earth x mass of object / r[sup]2[/sup]

G = 6.674 E-11 m[sup]3[/sup] kg[sup]-1[/sup] s[sup]-2[/sup]

mass of earth = 5.972 E24 kg

r = 6.378E6 m

Once again: g = mass of earth x G / r[sup]2[/sup]

solve and you get g = 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]

it leaves F = mass of object x g

F=mg.

 

Weight is the derivative of "g", and is a force.
Mass is not a derivative of anything other than the matter that a body contains.
Acceleration comes into play through the equation F = M A
F is the force (in this case the weight).
M is the mass of the object.
A is how the two are related. It is acceleration (m/s^2).
I.e. The relationship between a mass and the force upon it is acceleration in the direction of force.
This is Newton's Law.

On earth, the relationship between mass and weight is "g" which is 9.81 m/s^2
I.e. Weight = Mass * g

When you have an item at rest on a beach, the force downward due to gravity is Mg.
However this is balanced by a reaction force being applied upward on that same object of -Mg.
The net force is nil.
Thus the resultant acceleration is nil.
If you look at just the force of gravity, and try to work back from the object at rest having zero acceleration, you will conclude incorrectly that the force of gravity is zero.
I.e. If you say that the resultant force (zero) is only attributable to gravity, you will conclude that Mg = 0. And this would be incorrect.

 

But you know that Newton was full of it, right? Or are you now publicly stating that Newton's gravity is correct? Why are you stating Newton's crap, when you could be stating Einstein's crap?

The acceleration is zero. If f=ma then when a is zero then f=0. No?

 

For the seventh time: F=mg applies for both static and dynamic cases. When the object is free to fall, g acts on m to produce a force F which accelerates the body to an amount g. In the static case, the gravitational potential g acting on m produces a force F which is transmitted into the ground in the amount F=mg.

 

For the 287th time, there is force, that's it. There is no attractive force. Objects do not attract each other, they hit each other and force each other to move in space! Your illusion that mass has magical attractive abilities is BS!