Myths and Other Misconceptions

[BSG CORP]

• Gravity is not down - it is together!

 

• Weightlessness is not because one is in space: it's because one is falling! Space has gravity just like everywhere else, just no fixed objects to hold against to keep from falling.

 

• Antigravity doesn't exist. Gravity is always attractive, always a "together" force.

 

• Black holes don't suck everything into them, unless the object is falling towards them in the first place. If the Sun were converted into a black hole (which it can't be because the Sun is not massive enough), the Earth would continue in its orbit unperturbed.

 

• Heavier objects don't fall faster!

 

• Astronauts on the Moon were not weightless! The Moon has gravity much like the Earth. But since the Moon is less massive, the gravitational pull is smaller. The astronauts were pulled to the Moon with about 1/6th the force of gravity back here on Earth.

 

• Galileo probably didn't drop cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

 

• Newton probably wasn't really hit on the head by an apple. He might have possibly gotten the idea for extending the realm of gravity to the heavens by watching an apple fall; but, if so, he was likely in the safety of his study looking out a window... (He was a fastidious man in many ways, and it's hard to imagine him lounging around in an orchard.)

 

• Astrology simply doesn't work! The gravitational forces between the planets and newborn infants are tiny! Far smaller than the gravitational force between the doctor and the baby! And, as discussed before, none of the other forces have long range interactions that might be important.

 

• Planetary alignments have absolutely no effect on the Earth.

[YT2095]

Fantastic! and here we were thinking all of these were True!

 

actually one them are at least Part true and one part false

[KrisSam]

thats awesome! i thought most of those were real!

thanks a lot!

[thedarkshade]

How come antigravity doesn't exist? what about Archimedis force? It pushes everything up (against the gravity attraction) as long as the body weigh ([math]Q = mg[/math]) doesn't exceed Archimedi's force. How can it not exist?

 

Heavier objects don't fall faster

this is only for vacuum!

[Mr Skeptic]

How come antigravity doesn't exist? what about Archimedis force? It pushes everything up (against the gravity attraction) as long as the body weigh ([math]Q = mg[/math]) doesn't exceed Archimedi's force. How can it not exist?

 

Buoyancy. This only happens because the denser fluid surrounding the object is being pulled down by gravity more than the object.

[thedarkshade]

This only happens because the denser fluid surrounding the object is being pulled down by gravity more than the object.

Causing the other object a phenomenon called 'anti-gravity' (as far as I know:confused: )

[BSG CORP]

ANTIGRAVITY DOES NOT EXIST

Bert Schreiber

 

Abstract: Several experiments in the field of antigravity research by different individuals and or groups

showed that rotating masses (gyroscopes) apparently showed antigravity effects. The two results were:

Weight loss. Gyroscope(s) falling slower or measured gn changed. These results and conclusions were

false due to poor methodology and failure to understand exactly what the parameters of a gyroscope are.

Furthermore, antigravity (as a force/field) cannot exist, as there is no morphological (table) position for

them to exist at. Simply, an antigravity (Riemann Mirror Image of the gravity force/field) force/field

would self-destruct.

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

Over the past years various experiments by H. Hayasaka [1], V. G. Labeysh [2] and many other

of a similar nature, apparently showed the existence of an antigravity effect.

The work by Hayasaka only will be considered, as the end result is likewise applicable to all of

the other experiments. Within reason, Hayasaka eliminated, to the best of his ability, all of the

other possible causation’s such as the Coriolis’ force, change of gn with Earth’s surface tides,

temperature, etc.

However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, none of the experimenters considered the

absolute speed and direction of the Earth through space that changes (vectors) constantly.

However, it has no measurable effect and so is eliminated. Likewise, all of the experiments were

done in the Northern Hemisphere between restricted latitudes.

 

2. THE GYROSCOPE:

Unfortunately, the author must digress at this point. The majority of the readers of this paper will

probably not be familiar with the simple experiment shown in the old physics textbooks as such

have been removed from almost, if not all, current textbooks. A person holds a gyroscope (a

spinning bicycle wheel with the axle extended a few inches, in ones hands, arms extended at

right angles to their body while standing on a “lazy Susan”. When the person attempts to tilt the

wheel, their body rotates. In addition the wheel exerts a strong force against the tilt apparently

becoming “heavier”. Moving the axis laterally has no effect. Likewise, moving the whole axis up

or down vertically or even in a “horizontal” arc has no effect

 

3

The author is not aware of such experiments being done in the Southern Hemisphere as all of the

current experiments were done in the Northern Hemisphere and at latitudes above roughly 40

degrees.

Obviously, if ever done on the Moon, no effect as the rotational rate of the Moon is below

measurable effect.

 

4. NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS:

The author has offered a $2000.00 reward [3] starting over two years ago (EASY MONEY,

1998) to anyone who can show that there are more than three forces: Gravity, electric, and

magnetic. The morphological process did this. To date, not one single person has responded.

In addition, the author has a new a theory [4] that totally destroys all current physics theories. It

has been (was even in the past) that the Gravitational Constant is only a constant of

proportionality, consisting of two parts, and therefore just a number. The author has also shown

that any constant of proportionality can be eliminated in any equation it so appears in. The

Gravitational Constant is not required (and never should have been) in the first place to calculate

the force of gravity between masses. This is also in the reward along with the true equation for

gravitational attraction and the effect that requires only one mass to calculate it, i.e., a/the

singular gravitational force exists.

 

5. CONCLUSION:

A spinning mass does not create antigravity. The wrong conclusions were applied to poorly

performed experiments as all of the experimenters forgot the three primary simple facts on

gyroscopes to start with.

There is no place in the Laws of the Universe for antigravity, as it cannot exist.

[theCPE]

• Black holes don't suck everything into them, unless the object is falling towards them in the first place. If the Sun were converted into a black hole (which it can't be because the Sun is not massive enough), the Earth would continue in its orbit unperturbed.

 

 

Has to be the most common misconception I hear.

 

Even in this forum I recall reading how black holes at the center of galaxies suck everything in.....

[swansont]

Causing the other object a phenomenon called 'anti-gravity' (as far as I know:confused: )

 

The bouyancy force isn't a gravitational force. It is no more antigravity than a lift/elevator is.

[Farsight]

NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS

 

Einstein described gravity as a pseudoforce, and a falling body experiences no force. So in a way "no gravity force exists" too. So it's no small wonder that NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS. But we know that gravity exists, we know what people mean when they talk about the force of gravity. Gravity "pulls things together". And we know that the universe expands. The microwave background radiation is redshifted, and the distances between galaxies increases. Whilst this is not antigravity, it is in a sense opposite to gravity, and that's enough for me to say no, you should not make your claim that "There is no place in the Laws of the Universe for antigravity, as it cannot exist".

[Mr Skeptic]

If the universe were contracting, would that make gravity universally repulsive?

[thedarkshade]

ANTIGRAVITY??

 

What about magnet levitation. Check the link:

 

I mean, an object staying like that in the air, it makes you think about anti-gravity.

[MrMongoose]

What about electromagnetic levitation?

 

i.e. the repulsion of my chair by my rear end.

 

Magnetic levitation doesn't sound so special now does it?

[YT2095]

and for clarifications, the 2 bits in the OP, I would make an exception for are:

 

"• Weightlessness is not because one is in space: it's because one is falling! Space has gravity just like everywhere else, just no fixed objects to hold against to keep from falling."

 

this isn`t Strictly true, in space you`re Not "falling, you`re just not subject to any great gravitational Pull, so it just FEELS like you`re falling, but that`s due to a Biological/Physiological reason.

 

the second one was this:

 

"• Planetary alignments have absolutely no effect on the Earth."

 

this is neither True nor accurate, they Do indeed have an effect on Earth and the moon. not only in Light blocking (eclipse type activity) but also on Radio Weather (especially Jupiter), it`s just not a Huge effect.

[MrMongoose]

and for clarifications, the 2 bits in the OP, I would make an exception for are:

 

"• Weightlessness is not because one is in space: it's because one is falling! Space has gravity just like everywhere else, just no fixed objects to hold against to keep from falling."

 

this isn`t Strictly true, in space you`re Not "falling, you`re just not subject to any great gravitational Pull, so it just FEELS like you`re falling, but that`s due to a Biological/Physiological reason.

 

 

and of course youre not weightless, you just FEEL weightless.

[YT2095]

there are instances where you Could be "Weightless", but you`re Never Massless.

 

that would take Extraordinary Power and of course you being "Photonised"* (my new word for today) would hardly be Conscious of this Massless affair

 

* Photonised, if it doesn`t exist as a word it Should!

[Mr Skeptic]

and for clarifications, the 2 bits in the OP, I would make an exception for are:

 

"• Weightlessness is not because one is in space: it's because one is falling! Space has gravity just like everywhere else, just no fixed objects to hold against to keep from falling."

 

this isn`t Strictly true, in space you`re Not "falling, you`re just not subject to any great gravitational Pull, so it just FEELS like you`re falling, but that`s due to a Biological/Physiological reason.

 

But you are subject to great gravitational pulls. They are what cause you to go in elliptical orbits rather than a straight line. You'd have to be in a deep space void for there to be little gravity.

 

Depending on the definition of "falling" you may not be falling (as you might be going against the gravitational potential, rather than toward it); I believe the proper term is "freefall". The reason you can't feel yourself fall is because everything nearby you is falling at the same rate.

 

"Weightlessness" is a little inappropriate since gravity is still acting on you, and weight is the force gravity exerts on you. However, you could still say that it feels weightless, and you would be locally weightless.

[YT2095]

when you Are in Freefall you are to all intents and Purposes Weightless, but you`re not Massless.

 

it`s important to distinguish between the 2 here.

 

Lagrangian points may also be helpful to look up.

 

as for Eliptical orbits, how would you explain Geostationary orbit?

[Severian]

One could certainly argue that you are perfectly weightless when in freefall. Since GR is all about making all frames of reference (inertial and non-inertial) equivalent, then in the frame co-moving with you, there is no gravitational force, so you are weightless.

 

Massless is rather different. Most of your mass comes about from the strong interaction binding quarks into protons and neutrons in your body. So to become massless you would need to switch off the strong force, which may be rather unhealthy...

[Mr Skeptic]

when you Are in Freefall you are to all intents and Purposes Weightless, but you`re not Massless.

 

it`s important to distinguish between the 2 here.

 

Yes, I guess it would.

 

Lagrangian points may also be helpful to look up.

 

as for Eliptical orbits, how would you explain Geostationary orbit?

 

Geostationary orbits are those that orbit at the same speed that the earth is spinning. If you are standing still on the earth, it looks like they are not moving (they maintain the same position in the sky).

 

Lagrangian points are similar to geostationary orbits and are basically an orbit that maintains a stationary position, but this time compared to two other objects. They are also orbits, though, because the objects they remain relatively stationary to are in orbit.

[Riogho]

ANTIGRAVITY??

 

What about magnet levitation. Check the link:

 

I mean, an object staying like that in the air, it makes you think about anti-gravity.

 

Just because there is a force acting in the opposite direction of gravity, and outclocking it, doesn't mean it is antigravity. It's electromagnetic repulsion.

[MrMongoose]

Relativity doesn't change the fact that there is a gravitational force (weight) acting on you. If you were weightless you wouldn't orbit and enjoy all that wholesome free-fall feeling, you'd fly off into space as per Newtons 1st Law.

[Severian]

Relativity doesn't change the fact that there is a gravitational force (weight) acting on you. If you were weightless you wouldn't orbit and enjoy all that wholesome free-fall feeling, you'd fly off into space as per Newtons 1st Law.

 

It is just a matter of perspective. There exists a frame in which the orbit is the straight line, so is exactly what Newton would tell you happens with no gravitational force.

[mooeypoo]

How come antigravity doesn't exist? what about Archimedis force? It pushes everything up (against the gravity attraction) as long as the body weigh ([math]Q = mg[/math]) doesn't exceed Archimedi's force. How can it not exist?

 

this is only for vacuum!

 

If they're both the same shape (hence, eradicating differences in air resistance) then it's true for air, too

 

~moo

[MrMongoose]

It is just a matter of perspective. There exists a frame in which the orbit is the straight line, so is exactly what Newton would tell you happens with no gravitational force.

 

But then there's Newtons Third Law. If the earth is rotating around you, you must be falling towards it at the same rate that it falls towards you...