Gravity as function of movement

[pgharvey]

You appear to have ignored my point about the 30km/s motion around the sun. What about that?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Greg H.]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're spouting gibberish, and this is the point where I ask for the experimental evidence and/or the math to back up your assertions.

[pgharvey]

The speculations rules demand that you back up your assertions. I have raised a point that must be addressed. Here is another:

 

 

Then why do all objects gravitationally attract in accordance to their mass? Why don't we see a variation as the speed changes, as with the planets? Closed orbits require a force that drops off as 1/r^2. A speed-dependent force doesn't do this. How can you have closed orbits?

 

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"

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're spouting gibberish, and this is the point where I ask for the experimental evidence and/or the math to back up your assertions.

 

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"

[Greg H.]

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"

 

I am sure you can demonstrate the math behind this prediction. Right?

[John Cuthber]

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.

 

You can keep on emphasising it until you get bored of typing.

It's still only 1200 times faster than the tangential speed of the Earth.

 

I can measure the force of gravity to much better precision than that and it isn't affected by the Earth's spin in the way you say it should be.

 

I was not kidding when I asked if you understood just how good a decent balance is.

If you don't know then look it up.

 

 

 

 

(And you have yet to explain the Cavendish experiment)

Edited August 15, 2012 by John Cuthber

[pgharvey]

You can keep on emphasising it until you get bored of typing.

It's still only 1200 times faster than the tangential speed of the Earth.

 

I can measure the force of gravity to much better precision than that and it isn't affected by the Earth's spin in the way you say it should be.

 

I was not kidding when I asked if you understood just how good a decent balance is.

If you don't know then look it up.

 

 

 

 

(And you have yet to explain the Cavendish experiment)

 

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>

[John Cuthber]

I read your reply. But it doesn't answer the point.

 

Cavendish (and later workers) demonstrated the inverse square law.

 

If something varies as the square of the distance then you can't avoid having what you absurdly dismiss as "some spooky quasi-magnetic attraction between the two masses".

 

And you have yet to answer the point about measurements of gravity that should easily pick up the effect of the Earth's tangential velocity- but don't.

 

I say it's simply because the effect isn't there: gravity isn't produced by movement.

How do you explain it?

[ydoaPs]

The earth and I each have a gravitational field as a result of our motion as part of the galaxy, and so while the earth and I can be considered "at rest" with respect to each other, it is the interaction of those two gravitation fields caused by galaxial motion that makes each "pull" towards the other.

 

But the Earth and I are entirely stationary. It is the galaxy that is moving.

 

Let's start with a smaller system. Take, for a moment, an entire universe with all of the same laws of physics as ours, but containing nothing but 3 balls. These balls each have an invariant mass of 1kg. Balls 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to each other but not with ball 3.

 

We can choose reference the reference frame of the balls 1 and 2 which we shall designate "reference frame A" or the reference frame of ball 3 which we shall designate "reference frame B". In reference frame A, we only have one ball moving. In reference frame B, we have two balls moving. In reference frame A, we see that ball 3 is approaching balls 1 and 2 at 100km/s. In reference frame B, we see that both balls 1 and 2 are approaching ball 3 at 100km/s. We can define a special reference frame C in which all of the balls are moving and balls 1 and 2 approach ball 3 at 50km/s while ball 3 approaches balls 1 and 2 at 50km/s.

 

In frame A, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame B, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame C, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart?

 

Hint: the amount of spacetime distortion based on velocity is given by the Lorentz transform:

 

[math]x={x_0}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]

[ACG52]

Forum rules:

 

<LI>Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

So this thread should be in the Trash.

[pgharvey]

Forum rules:

 

 

 

So this thread should be in the Trash.

 

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

[Greg H.]

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

 

I'm still waiting for the math that backs up why that experiment would be any more useful to this than sticking my head out the window and checking for rain. Come on, good fellow. Show us the numbers that indicate that your assertions are more than, as Moontanman would say, horsefeathers.

[pgharvey]

I'm still waiting for the math that backs up why that experiment would be any more useful to this than sticking my head out the window and checking for rain. Come on, good fellow. Show us the numbers that indicate that your assertions are more than, as Moontanman would say, horsefeathers.

 

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.

[ACG52]

or perhaps just make things up for fun.

 

That's not what the forum rules say.

 

If you just want to make things up, do it in the Trash.

[pgharvey]

But the Earth and I are entirely stationary. It is the galaxy that is moving.

 

Let's start with a smaller system. Take, for a moment, an entire universe with all of the same laws of physics as ours, but containing nothing but 3 balls. These balls each have an invariant mass of 1kg. Balls 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to each other but not with ball 3.

 

We can choose reference the reference frame of the balls 1 and 2 which we shall designate "reference frame A" or the reference frame of ball 3 which we shall designate "reference frame B". In reference frame A, we only have one ball moving. In reference frame B, we have two balls moving. In reference frame A, we see that ball 3 is approaching balls 1 and 2 at 100km/s. In reference frame B, we see that both balls 1 and 2 are approaching ball 3 at 100km/s. We can define a special reference frame C in which all of the balls are moving and balls 1 and 2 approach ball 3 at 50km/s while ball 3 approaches balls 1 and 2 at 50km/s.

 

In frame A, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame B, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart (show your work)? In frame C, what's the gravitational attraction between ball 1 and 3 when they are 1km apart?

 

Hint: the amount of spacetime distortion based on velocity is given by the Lorentz transform:

 

[math]x={x_0}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]

 

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

 

That's not what the forum rules say.

 

If you just want to make things up, do it in the Trash.

 

I copied and pasted that from "Speculation Forum Rules" (see top of page"

[ACG52]

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can.

 

And to be blunt about it, this idea is nonsense.

[pgharvey]

And to be blunt about it, this idea is nonsense.

 

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)

[John Cuthber]

It doesn't matter if one of your predictions comes true.

What matters is that many of them fail.

Cavendish's experiment, the variation of the earth's gravity with latitude and the impossibility of orbits show that you are wrong.

 

If you have an idea and it doesn't tally with reality, that isn't because reality is wrong.

[swansont]

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"

But the speed is not constant. You hand-waved this away, but the variation in speed is not small, so we should notice this. And we don't. You also have the problem of highly-elliptical orbits exhibiting large variations in their speed, which is another problem. They need to have a 1/r^2 law in order to have an elliptical orbit, and will not have that functional form.

[Greg H.]

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.

You apparently stopped reading immediately after the word fun.

Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

 

First and foremost among them being when you make an assertion, you provide some kind of justification for that assertion. And the more fantastical the claim, the impressive the evidence is going to need to be.

 

We're not upset at your speculations (or at least I'm not, I can't speak for anyone else), but science isn't done by ignoring the bad feedback and basking in the good. If you're only interested in positive comments, go start a blog where you can delete all the people who tell you your idea is unmitigated nonsense and demand that you back it up with some kind of rigorous mathematical treatment.

 

And while you're quoting rules, you should make sure you're actually quoting a rule, not just the mission statement of the forum. Selective quote mining is a tactic used to push pseudo science and by science deniers, not folks doing serious science. If what you're really trying to do is the latter, then you should be prepared both for negative comments and to provide the math behind your reasoning.

[pgharvey]

You apparently stopped reading immediately after the word fun.

 

 

First and foremost among them being when you make an assertion, you provide some kind of justification for that assertion. And the more fantastical the claim, the impressive the evidence is going to need to be.

 

We're not upset at your speculations (or at least I'm not, I can't speak for anyone else), but science isn't done by ignoring the bad feedback and basking in the good. If you're only interested in positive comments, go start a blog where you can delete all the people who tell you your idea is unmitigated nonsense and demand that you back it up with some kind of rigorous mathematical treatment.

 

And while you're quoting rules, you should make sure you're actually quoting a rule, not just the mission statement of the forum. Selective quote mining is a tactic used to push pseudo science and by science deniers, not folks doing serious science. If what you're really trying to do is the latter, then you should be prepared both for negative comments and to provide the math behind your reasoning.

 

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

[ydoaPs]

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"

 

 

Also, you'll need to explain why the gravitational force is dependent upon distance between the objects, as your version prima face indicates otherwise. Also, why do I weigh less on Luna than Earth?

[pgharvey]

Also, you'll need to explain why the gravitational force is dependent upon distance between the objects, as your version prima face indicates otherwise. Also, why do I weigh less on Luna than Earth?

 

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 H.]

All matter in our solar system is travelling at 600 kilometers a second, as part of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Actually this is wrong, on two counts:

 

The earth, as was pointed out earlier will not always be moving at 600 km/s with respect to the galactic core due to its own orbital velocity around the sun. Why don't we see periodic fluctuations in the earth's gravity as we orbit the sun? You can hand wave them away by saying they're insignificant, but I don't call a 5% change in velocity insignificant.

 

Second, you're math is wrong. The solar system orbits the galaxy at closer to 220 - 250 km/s, not 600. So the difference in velocity is actually closer to 12-13%, which is a significant margin.

 

Now, it's time for you to show your work, as it were. Let's see the equations, with derivations, that will allow us to make a firm conclusion about the accuracy of your claims.

[ACG52]

The earth, as was pointed out earlier will not always be moving at 600 km/s with respect to the galactic core due to its own orbital velocity around the sun

 

He's not talking about the solar system's orbital velocity in the galaxy, or the Earth's in the solar system. He simply ignores that. He's talking about the fact that the Local Galactic Group is moving at about 600km/s in the general direction of the Virgo constellation. He's fixated on that movement, and making empty assertions.

[swansont]

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

Taken as a set, all of them. You don't mention distance. What you have done is describe a force that is a function of speed. You say the total field is from a distortion which depends on speed. The implication of that is that it's not a function of distance. And that's trivially falsified.