pgharvey

Again with the hysteria....but one persons empty pizza box is another persons art This thread is of use because all refutations, as well as your own, could be helpful to others in the future. And one more time ...... this is a SPECULATIVE THREAD but you and others are treating it like it is a life or death event. I see people like you have over five thousand posts on this wonderful site.....really, do you have THAT much to contribute to the world, or are you just a sad person living in a garage watching reruns of Star Trek all day whose only lifeline to the world is the 5,499 posts you have made on this site?

Once again I find a certain hysterical vindictiveness in posts like this and others ( "Trash this thread"!!) I already said in this thread that I am quite probably wrong.....but I also said that it would be nice if this thread was not trashed, because I do see on the internet others have asked this question and this thread may well be of some help to them, or anyone who Googles the topic in the future......and will be elucidated by the highly intelligent refutations of my theory by all you fine gentlemen and thus be dissuaded from continuing to pursue this crackpot idea and bother all you fine gentlemen with new posts on the subject

What I find strange Mr Cuthber is that I did reply to your question about the Cavendish experiment....but you never actually replied to my response. Instead, when I prodded you, you did answer, but wandered off on some obscure picky "other thing" You seem like many other people on this forum who want to bounce from one thing to another, and never actually address my reply. Like poster "Greg H" you want to go on and on about the same thing and never really respond to my replies. In your case it is going on and on about the Cavendish experiment.... I think of the lyric in the fabulous song by Prince...."When Dove's Cry': "Maybe I'm just like my Father...too Bold Maybe you're just like my Mother She's never satisfied" That's you Mr Cuthber....never satisfied

Greg.....in post number 58 to you, I politely explained how and why I came to my conclusions....and I also told you that while I have a degree in math that was many years ago and there is no way I could "come up with equations".... so why don't you just let it go and not bother responding anymore and keep repeating the same demands that I have answered...just as you said you were going to do yesterday

Mr Swantsont....I am sure you have decided by now that I am a borderline moron, but if you can bear with me and answer one naive question from me: There is a tiny rod glued to the edge of a disc being rotated and while it is being rotated there is curvature of space around the tiny rod. Suddenly the glue breaks and the tiny rod flies off at a tangent!!!! Does the curvature of space around the tiny rod INSTANTLY disappear the microsecond the glue bond breaks and the tiny rod flies off tangentially? Well Greg, your reply supports what I have previously said...that I am disappointed that the tone of responses here are pompous, sanctimonious and holier-than-thou. I picked the largest number....because it was the largest!! It wasn't the largest number I could "find at random"....it was just the largest number!! When I made the initial post I thought I should make it simple and not mention the 220km/sec speed within the spiral arms of our galaxy so kept it to the very simple 600km/sec motion of the galaxy. Now I know why I instinctively did that....because people like you would be hyperventilating start obsessing on some obscure aspect of the rotation within spiral arms.

Greg you are right...the solar system DOES orbit the galaxy at 220 km/sec and I ignored that in favor of what is my understanding that the galaxy itself is moving at 600 km/sec....because that is the greater speed. I do have a degree in math but that was many years ago, and honestly there is no way I could ever start to come up with some equations to back up my theory... I came to my conclusion thinking about the Ehrenfest Paradox and the suggestion that the Lorentz contraction on the edge of a disc must cause the space around it to become non-Euclidian....I thought to myself: "Well, isn't that what we call gravity"?? Then I thought: "If gravity is caused by a distortion of space by the motion of something, like the edge of a disc, what motion is there that is significant enough to be noticable....I ruled out motion within a nucleus, Brownian motion, the rotation of the earth, and as you said, the rotation of the galactic arms (220 km/sec) etc etc because they all paled in significance to the overall speed of the galaxy No buddy, what I said was that the CAUSE of the force is a function of the speed of the mass....not the mass itself. Whatever the CAUSE of the force (ie either some intrinsic property of the mass, or as I assert, the speed of the mass), the CAUSE of the force does not in any way change all those things that have been previously established about the force.... for instance that there is an relationship between two masses subject to this force, like...... their distance apart IS of consequence. The only thing I hypothesized about was the CAUSE of the force

Hi ydoaps My prima facie case consisted of six simple statements: A body in motion distorts space. The faster the motion, the more distortion. This distortion (making the space around it non-Euclidian) is called gravity. All matter in our solar system is travelling at 600 kilometers a second, as part of the Milky Way Galaxy. The cumulative effect of the distortion of space around each particle on earth, say, results in the total gravitational field around the earth. It is not the mass of the earth that causes the gravitational field, it is the motion of that mass. Which of my six statements "indicates" (unquote) that the gravitational force is NOT dependent upon distance between the objects

Greg, first let me say that when I said I was interested in people contributing positive comments....I misstated that.I did not mean I only wanted people who agree with me to respond, I meant I would prefer to hear calm, rational replies.A lot of responses are pompous, supercilious, snippy, sarcastic, holier-than-thou and just plain angry, and SOME seem hell-bent on actually politicking to have this post in the SPECULATIVE forum moved to the trashI don't believe I have stooped to that level. With respect to your snippy complaint that I selectively quoted only part of the rules and objectives of the Speculation Forum:Of course I read all the rules Greg, but I only quoted the mission statement to put it in perspective....but you wanted to zero in on "the rules".Well, the only "rule" that I could see that applied was for me to "give a prediction that was testable".I did that. And it is pretty rich for you to sermonize about my "selective quote mining" because many of the respondents to my post did exactly that...and ignored my responses. As it stands this thread has degenerated into drama so I will say to you all: Quite probably I am wrong (YAY!!!! Party time at Science Forums lol)It would be nice if this thread was not dispatched to trash as my comments and the responses may be found to be interesting and helpful by others who stumble across it...even years from now. And thank you to the owners/administrators of the forum for giving me this platform

I gave a prediction that can be tested.... <b><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Human reluctance to accept the counter intuitive explains why most of last centuries great scientific discoveries, namely, the counter intuitive quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity, with their immense implications, took over twenty years to be taken seriously</b>(From The Economist)

Interesting....I had a molar extracted yesterday and am under the weather and over medicated lol...give me a couple of days to respond - thanks I copied and pasted that from "Speculation Forum Rules" (see top of page"

To those of you that seem extremely upset by my speculation: You don't HAVE to read the thread.....leave it to others who may be interested in the idea, and interested in contributing positive comments The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun.

In post #28 I provided an experiment that could be done to test this, as you require

Hi John....I did reply to your question about the Cavendish experiment...it is at the top of page 2...what I said was: <b>The Cavendish was designed on the false premise that two lead balls have some kind of gravitational attraction to to each other..... like magnets.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">The experiment still makes sense and works, because the two lead balls are actually drawn to each other by the interaction of their respective gravitational fields...fields created independently by the motion of both balls (600 km/sec) as part of the galaxy, not some spooky quasi-magnetic attraction between the two masses </b>

All objects DO attract in accordance with their mass.....but it is not because of some intrinsic property of the mass, it is because of the motion of the mass....it is the motion of the mass that distorts space....the greater the motion, the more distortion...and a larger mass in motion (at speed "s") distorts space more than a smaller mass at speed "s" greg....I am not in a position to do an experiment....if you are, and it all pans out I will split the Nobel Prize with you hahaha Here is the experiment: 1. Determine the direction our galaxy is moving 2. Calculate a time when a particular stretch of land on earth is aligned with/parallel to the motion of our galaxy that (ie "pointing in the same direction") 3. fire a particle in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION at the same speed of the galaxy (600 km/sec) then if the theory is true, that particle should exhibit no "gravity"

Any motion of mass distorts the space around it...so yes, the 30km/s motion of particles in the earth around the sun contributes to the distortion of space ("gravity") ....so does the brownian motion of atoms and molecules, oscillation of electrons etc within an atom (500 m/s), vibration of atoms and molecules due to heat .......yes they all contribute...but ALL those things have slower motions that pale in significance to the much faster motion of the galaxy. I emphasized the speed of the galaxy because that is by far the most significant and large motion experienced by all particles in our neighborhood.