Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Sarkus, Mar 24, 2014.

  1. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    I think most students and lay people know as much or more about physics than these cranks, and are immune to most of the things they write. Regardless, I think the rules about posting crap in this section rather than the junk science sections need to be much more strictly enforced.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Agreed...I mean what have we got the Alternative theories section for anyway?
    It's a joke and one the crank brigade are milking to its fullest.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    If you would have answered some of my leading questions that I asked of you then we would have started a conversation, and you might have learned something. But you didn't. That to me seems like you purposely avoided answering my questions because the correct answer would contradict your BS, and that would be detrimental to your case, eh?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695

    Not at all. The conceptual interpretation/picturing of those forces are as you say, but in reality itself they are not as 'pictured/interpreted in that POV way which is by definition a convention as to which 'point of view' you take for some explanatory illustrative exercise/modeling. I am not interested in arbitrary POVs, only the reality and the entities/factors involved at the most fundamental process effects/forces acting which way at any one moment/event. Abstractions and POV exercises are useful, but not reality per se.

    The present string arrangement is a direct result of prior inherent Quantum dynamics of the energy-space from which all 'features' arise, evolve, interact, arrange, persist and then subside etc depending on the dynamics locally. The local dynamics producing the 'string' is the valence level electronic energy-space feature which result in less/more energetic inherent motional tendencies which when reduced by loss of said excess to surrounding environment energy-space via radiation etc, then the environment 'pushes' the reduced energy-states together more than the interior forces 'push' try to push outwards the particle constituents; hence the 'interplay' of push-in and push out forces results in a balanced state energy-space 'dynamical feature' in the form of that arranged in string. If the constituents of that 'string' had excess energy of inherent inertial/kinetic/oscillatory/vibrational/orbital etc motional energy, then they would be unstable 'features' configuration and would decay/radiate excess or be self-destroyed by internal forces pushing everything apart.

    What do you think 'unstable particles' are undergoing inside with their energies of motional effects which eventually either radiate (beta etc) or disintegrate/split (fission etc)?

    Remember that ancient steam-condensing vacuum effect demonstration? What do you think 'attracted' the two halves of the hollow bronze sphere together? From one POV it was 'the sucking vacuum'. But on closer inspection, we know that it is the outside air pushing in on the sphere much more than the remaining air molecules inside can push outwards.

    The POV view/interpretation is made MOOT once the reality is consulted. And reality is the ONLY POV that really and finally matters....in reality. Yes?


    Anyhow, that's all I am at liberty to say on this aspect for now. Thanks for the interesting chat, mate. Cheers!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2014
  8. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Posted by mistake...now deleted by me. Thanks.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oEmPP5dTM&feature=kp


    It could just as logically be said, that the partial, vacuum inside sucked the walls in.....Pull, push, it depends on how one prefers to look at a situation.
    Both can be, and are valid.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,541
    I am confident 'ole Satch was never accused of sucking on his .....uhm.....trumpet...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Yes, and you unfortunately seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing the fanciful dreams of a 9 year old from subatomic physical reality. You argue that all pulls are really pushes, I showed how the same logic in reverse could replace every pushing force with a pulling force, and then you appeal to a reality which features both types of forces as if that's somehow supposed to bamboozle me into taking your preferred POV. When I see that you're capable of modelling and predicting even the simplest pieces of reality, only then can I even begin to contemplate taking what you say about pushes and pulls seriously, because observable reality features both types of forces everywhere we look. Why would I take your musings on subatomic beta decay seriously when I don't even think you can model the tension in a string, or the flow of heat in a baked pie?
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I answered your questions. Do you have more?


    We are having a conversation, just not a normal one.


    I'm always learning. Aren't you?

    I actually took you off ignore for the sole purpose of answering you, which is exactly the opposite.

    My Bachelor of Science is in part founded on these first principles we are discussing.

    Speaking of going to college: it occured to me to look at what the SATs are asking these days. I did find a sample test which had at least one question on gravity. This gives you some idea of what a "correct answer" is.

    It's from this sample test. Question 16, page 36:

    The Earth has a radius of 6,400 kilometers. A satellite orbits the
    Earth at a distance of 12,800 kilometers from the center of the
    Earth. If the weight of the satellite on Earth is 100 kilonewtons,
    the gravitational force on the satellite in orbit is
    (A) 11 kilonewtons
    (B) 25 kilonewtons
    (C) 50 kilonewtons
    (D) 100 kilonewtons
    (E) 200 kilonewtons

    16. Difficulty: 5
    The correct answer is choice (B) 25 kilonewtons. The weight
    of the satellite on Earth is the same as the gravitational force
    on it, and the gravitational force F on an object due to Earth
    is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r of
    the object from the center of Earth (Fμl/r²). In the given
    orbit, the satellite is twice as far from the center of Earth
    than when it is on Earth’s surface, so the gravitational force
    on it is one fourth as great. Therefore, the gravitational force
    on the satellite in orbit is 100 kilonewtons divided by 4,
    which is equal to 25 kilonewtons.

    If you mean the case of "getting into college", then no, it's quite advantageous to know some physics.


    Question: Why doesn't the Earth crash into the Sun due to the attractive force of gravity?

    Answer: Gravity is not the only force accelerating the Earth. While it's true that the Sun's gravitational field does accelerate the Earth toward the center of the Sun, the Earth's initial kinetic energy, before it became captured by the Sun*, is accelerating the Earth away from the Sun. Otherwise, the Earth* would have crashed into the sun the way meteors crash into Earth.

    The acceleration of a body of mass m with an orbital velocity v at a radius r from the Sun is a=v[sup]2[/sup]/r. Thus this second force acting on Earth is F=ma=mv[sup]2[/sup]/r.

    ____

    *the debris that formed the Earth, that is.
     
  13. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    You've continuously failed to explain how the earth is accelerating towards the sun while it's getting further away from the sun? The earth is getting further away from the sun, so your claim that the sun is attracting the earth to it is total nonsense!
     
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Well, there's a grain of truth (JUST a grain!) in that - so let me ask you this, MD, what is it that keeps the Earth from just flying away from the Sun, eh?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yep, apparently magically, it is doing both

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Sun is slowly losing mass, and coupled with the gravitational attraction that masses have on each other in Newtonian mechanics, it is both falling towards the Sun, while ever so slowly moving away.

    BTW, the Moon is also moving away while falling towards the Earth. But that involves a process called tidal gravitation, plus friction.
     
  16. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi CptBork.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But you fail to justify in real physical reality terms your abstractly replacing a pushing force with a pulling force. Especially since there is no pulling force with which TO 'replace' the pushing force in reality.

    See? Just because you can abstractly thematically simulate a 'model' which 'reverses' things, it doesn't make it real.

    Just as in the maths equations and geometric graphs you can ABSTRACTLY 'reverse and travel back along the TIME axis', you can't actually DO that in reality, can you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is all I am saying. The abstract modeling is LIMITED in its ability to reflect reality if the abstractions are treated as REAL THING when they go beyond the DOMAIN OF APPLICABILITY when the reality explanations/POV is what's needed, not just mere abstractions. Yes?

    Cheers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It applies both ways. Live with it.....
     
  18. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    What "applies both ways"? Be clear and specify what is the 'thing' in your mind which you 'think' you are saying. Thanks.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
  20. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    So are you withdrawing your comment and agreeing that one can't actually in reality go back along a 'time axis' that is a mere math/geometry equations/graphing abstraction not reality?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Stop blubbering undefined. You know what I'm saying. I'm saying a pull or a push can be interpreted either way in most circumstances...Just as FoR's in GR are all valid.To say a pull does not exist, is the height of pseudoquackery.
     
  22. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Have you even read the posts already explaining how and where your opinion/POV arbitrariness is wrong in reality? No? Please do so before making more silly dismissive remarks about things which you obviously haven't a clue about yet. Thanks.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I don't need to read anything in regards to pull and push.........
    Pull and push both realistically exist in nature.
    To deny that is quackery....period!
     

Share This Page