Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is..

But I can only slow it down in one direction at a time. It would still move just as fast as before in the other directions. Why would that not make it catch up with the Earth? I pointed out earlier that a point on the surface of the earth slows down in one direction while speeding up in another all the time. That should make it so a ball thrown straight up would catch up with the point it was thrown from again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look, I pointed out that you failed 9-th grade physics, why do you persist?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you talk to people in real life this way? I guarantee you wouldn't want talk to me like that to my face. It would not end well. I never had 9th grade physics. So why don't you teach me something instead of insulting me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, how did you graduate from high school?

 

In 9th grade I had to take my classes on a computer from home. I took Vocational Tech in the rest of my high school, which gave me my science credits. Regardless, in 2D space if I have a ball in my hand and I'm standing on something moving 212km/s at 0 degrees and I throw the ball 100kph at 90 degrees, I've accelerated it and added momentum to it, so it would still move 212km/s at 0 degrees while also moving 100kph at 90 degrees. It would then move diagonally, right?

So if I'm standing on the Earth and the Earth is moving 225km at 110 degrees and 29.7km/s at 0 degrees and the surface is moving 0.465km/s and I throw the ball straight "up" while on the opposite side the earth is moving, how would I decelerate it in all of those directions at once? Why wouldn't the ball collide with the Earth again?

 

Projectile motion while omitting gravity? That's a self-contradiction. But I've done regular projectile motion and and and I've done relative motion problems where gravity is not considered. So what you are probably describing wrongly is a poorly defined but basic high school physics projectile motion problem, with the added incorrect assumption that speed through the galaxy matters. So I was right: the problem here is that you don't understand what "move relative to something" means. Just like Motor Daddy! So:

All motion is relative. There is no experiment you can do in a closed container that will show you you are moving. That's why it is possible to play ping pong in a train moving in a straight line and have the game behave no differently than if you were on the ground. So while you can easily say that the earth is moving relative to the center of the galaxy, you can also say the earth is moving relative to any other arbitrary reference frame you choose. So for your math, you could plug literally any speed into the equations you want because the earth literally has an infinite number of different speeds based on an infinite number of choices of frames of reference.

 

The person with the attitude here is you. You came to a place where scientists reside and you called them all idiots. What kind of response did you expect!?

 

They all called me an idiot first. Everyone has been insulting.

Do you seriously think I don't know what it means to move relative to something? I don't understand why you think it doesn't matter how fast the earth is moving. Does it not give something on its surface momentum, just like the ball in my car? The Earth can move more freely through 3D space than my car can, so it can move the way it does in more than one direction. A ball thrown straight up would still be able to move along with the surface of the earth (1666km/hr at the equator) and most of the momentum from moving around the sun and galaxy. Why would it not catch up as the Earth moves. The Earth is HUGE compared to throwing a ball 10 meters in the air. That's a very big target for it to miss.

The reason I am using the Earth's speed relative to the center of the galaxy is because that is the lowest level up the hierarchy of things that revolve around things often enough to matter.

You all think I'm retarded, when I'm apparently the only one who's really given a lot of thought to an Earth with no gravity. I know how gravity works with the curvature of space-time. I know about Newton's laws. I know about time dilation, the relativity of simultaneity, Lorentz transformations, Minkowski Space. I'm not here to talk about any of that. You are all really hard to get along with. You have no idea how frustrated I am right now.

 

You're wrong. The Earth as a whole may only be able to move in one direction at once, but it is rotating and we are on its surface. It is moving in 2 directions at once. That is key.

BTW that point where you could jump off would be in Antarctica. Not too many people down there to prove/disprove that theory. There is a gravitational anomaly there though, no surprise to me.

 

This explains why you don't know elementary physics. You should consider going back to high school and studying the subject. Your attempts at making up stuff are pathetic failures. No point in continuing posting until you have your basics.

 

No. "You're all idiots" is basically the title of the thread, it just didn't become apparent immediately.

At first, you asked simply if the idea had any merit, people politely replied no, and the thread should have ended immediately. Your persistence caused the reaction you got.

The second sentence answers the question most definitively no. No, it doesn't matter, therefore you don't understand relative motion. But lets take it slow:

Do you understand that a car uses the same amount of gas driving east as it does driving west? That the rotation of the earth has no impact on it?

Also:

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring that, it is just unanswerable. It isn't so much wrong as nonsensical.

No, we don't. We think you are uninformed and spectacularly arrogant and stubborn about it.

There's that arrogance again. Nevermind the millions of scientists and engineers who have studied and used gravity over the past few centuries. Someone who doesn't even know what they learned has somehow thought of something they haven't? (that is useful?) Just to be clear here:

1. You are aware scientists/engineers have sent space probes to other planets, right?
2. You are aware that our current theory of gravity works exquisitely well, right?

So what do you think your idea could possibly bring to the table? Our understanding of gravity isn't broken, so there isn't anything for you to fix!

Being stubborn an arrogant is frustrating. You're going to need to learn to deal with that if you ever want to have any hope of learning. You'll need to accept that you might not be The Smartest Person Who Ever Lived and that therefore you are the one who needs to learn from us, not the other way around. Otherwise, frustration is all you'll ever get out of this.

 

I think you're wrong, but since you are unwilling to do the math to prove your point, I'll have to learn to do it myself. Thanks everyone for the zero help you've given me.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok, now I'm no longer sure that this isn't a troll/joke. You don't think that if there were no gravity on Antarctic scientists wouldn't have noticed yet? You are aware that we have a research station right on the south pole, populated by as many as 200 people at a time, right?

 

If we've prompted you to go learn science instead of idly speculating about it, that's the most important help we could have provided!

 

Who said there was no gravity? You did. Just forget it. I'm tired of talking to you guys without making any progress. I'm glad I don't study physics because I really don't want to turn out like you guys.

 

I came here to share my idea and learn why it could be wrong. All I get is you guys telling me it is wrong without giving me the same thing you request of me to prove that I am right. Everyone on here lacks social skills.

 

Can't argue with a crank. There's no rationality there.

 

Will you just go away? Arguing with those that you consider to be cranks would seem to be your favorite thing to do.

 

Stop posting your crap where some unsuspecting person who is taking high school physics might stumble across it and become confused.

 

Hi jiveabillion. Welcome. Ignore any "personal' stuff if it becomes too shrill, it's just 'noise'.

Anyhow, regarding Earth gravity, it's important to remember that Earth's macro gravity effect is the cumulative effect of all the micro gravity associated with each of the many elementary bits of energy/matter making up the Earth's mass.

So it's at the quantum scale that gravity arises, not at the macro scale of planets etc.

Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that the quantum processes going on in the overall universal energy-space (within which all quantum phenomena arises, evolves and subsides) is what counts, and not some "geometric construction" of the paths observed for the motions which occur across that universal quantum energy-space 'arena'.

Consequent to that perspective, your 'motion through space' view of the phenomena does not really explain what causes the gravitational effect at the most fundamental level of quantum processes, and hence I must say your hypothesis as stated is falsified by the quantum mechanics view which precedes the macro geometric view both in scale and in logics.

I hope you will not be discouraged from further cogitation on the universal phenomena. Keep reading and thinking about things and it will all 'click' for you, insight by insight, as time and effort gives results that you can understand in a consistent way. Good luck and enjoy your intellectual explorations!