Gravity as function of movement

[Greg H.]

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.

 

Oh. Wow that makes even less sense. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

@pgharvey

Math, my friend. Show us the maths.

 

 

 

[ACG52]

No math, no mas.

[Iggy]

Here's an experiment to verify or disprove it:1. Determine the direction our galaxy is moving2. 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"

If there is no gravity at 600 km/s then there should be half at 300 km/s and a quarter at 150 and so on. Earth rotates at about .5 km/s so we should notice something like a .1% change in gravity over the course of a day. It looks like people have pointed out that gravimeters could easily detect that if your idea had merit. Because they don't the only possible conclusion is that it doesn't.

[pgharvey]

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.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

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

[swansont]

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

The non-Euclidean nature of a rotating disc did lead Einstein to the curvature of general relativity, aka gravity; the failure here is one of logic. While all rotational motion causes curvature, not all curvature is caused by rotational motion (universal affirmatives can only be partially converted). Further, you have incorrectly extrapolated from rotation to linear motion.

 

Evidence trivially contradicts your claim.

[Greg H.]

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

 

 

 

So you just picked the largest number you could find at random because it was the largest number? So your logic goes something like "Eh, this one seems right. We'll use it."

 

Doesn't that strike as being somewhat arbitrary and completely unsupported?

 

Also, 220 km/s second does not pale in comparison to 600 km/s. It's a significant fraction of that number and would cause a noticeable effect in the measured gravitational force. Your idea, the logic behind it, and your reasoning are all ludicrous.

 

I'm done here. Enjoy.

[pgharvey]

The non-Euclidean nature of a rotating disc did lead Einstein to the curvature of general relativity, aka gravity; the failure here is one of logic. While all rotational motion causes curvature, not all curvature is caused by rotational motion (universal affirmatives can only be partially converted). Further, you have incorrectly extrapolated from rotation to linear motion.

 

Evidence trivially contradicts your claim.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you just picked the largest number you could find at random because it was the largest number? So your logic goes something like "Eh, this one seems right. We'll use it."

 

Doesn't that strike as being somewhat arbitrary and completely unsupported?

 

Also, 220 km/s second does not pale in comparison to 600 km/s. It's a significant fraction of that number and would cause a noticeable effect in the measured gravitational force. Your idea, the logic behind it, and your reasoning are all ludicrous.

 

I'm done here. Enjoy.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

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?

I don't know. The material in Ehrenfest's paradox is physically impossible. Once you posit something that violates the laws of physics, you can pretty much come to any conclusion you want.

 

Regardless, the point is that just because motion (rotation) gives curvature does not mean that all curvature comes from motion. And that not all motion is rotation. There is no curvature for constant speed linear motion — the curvature for rotation is because linear speed varies with distance.

[Greg H.]

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.

 

If I come as pompous or holier than thou, I do apologize, that's not my intent, but I'm growing slightly disappointed by your refusal (or inability) to answer questions about the methods used to make these predictions, or the derivations used to choose the movement of the galaxy, but not the solar system. You can't just pick and choose what matters and what doesn't - there needs to be some definable reason, demonstrable in the math of your theory, as to why that particular number is the only one that matters. Otherwise we will, as you put it, hyperventilate about your inability to answer our questions and convince us that your theory is any more than bilge.

 

(Actually I don't think any of us is any state of panic about your continued inability to overthrow a fundamental part of physics - if anything, we're just tired of you continuously dodging the questions).

 

So I will put it to you one final time.

 

Demonstrate the equations, with derivations, that support your idea, accounting for the local variances in velocity, as well as the fact that gravitational attraction demonstrably varies with distance. Remember that these equations should answer the questions presented to you previously (i.e. why does gravity not change, despite substantial local variations in velocity).

 

 

 

[pgharvey]

If I come as pompous or holier than thou, I do apologize, that's not my intent, but I'm growing slightly disappointed by your refusal (or inability) to answer questions about the methods used to make these predictions, or the derivations used to choose the movement of the galaxy, but not the solar system. You can't just pick and choose what matters and what doesn't - there needs to be some definable reason, demonstrable in the math of your theory, as to why that particular number is the only one that matters. Otherwise we will, as you put it, hyperventilate about your inability to answer our questions and convince us that your theory is any more than bilge.

 

(Actually I don't think any of us is any state of panic about your continued inability to overthrow a fundamental part of physics - if anything, we're just tired of you continuously dodging the questions).

 

So I will put it to you one final time.

 

Demonstrate the equations, with derivations, that support your idea, accounting for the local variances in velocity, as well as the fact that gravitational attraction demonstrably varies with distance. Remember that these equations should answer the questions presented to you previously (i.e. why does gravity not change, despite substantial local variations in velocity).

 

 

 

 

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

[John Cuthber]

pgharvey

Your ideas are full of more holes than a string vest yet you expect someone else to give up and "just let it go and not bother responding anymore".

 

Nope, that's not how it works.

You came up with this idea so it's your job to try to prove it.

Since it does not agree with reality (Cavendish's experiment or the behaviour of balances) it's false.

The idea is dead.

You are the one who should just let it go.

[swansont]

Short short version: When speed varies, gravity doesn't. Which absolutely kills the idea that gravity depends on speed.

[ACG52]

Since the op doesn't wish to discuss the issue any further, perhaps it's time for the trash for this thread.

[Greg H.]

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

 

As I said, that was my final effort to get you to demonstrate some scientific integrity. And you did, to the extent that you've basically admitted you essentially picked the number out of a hat of other numbers, any of which could have been more important. And you've been forthcoming enough to state that you can't back up your ideas with any kind of mathematical proof.

 

So essentially you're just asking us to take your word for it that this is right.

 

Sorry, no. If we did that, the earth would be a 6000 year old flat disc, and leeches would cure disease.

 

You want us to listen to your idea, you need more than "It sounds right to me" to back you up.

 

Since the op doesn't wish to discuss the issue any further, perhaps it's time for the trash for this thread.

 

Agreed.

[pgharvey]

pgharvey

Your ideas are full of more holes than a string vest yet you expect someone else to give up and "just let it go and not bother responding anymore".

 

Nope, that's not how it works.

You came up with this idea so it's your job to try to prove it.

Since it does not agree with reality (Cavendish's experiment or the behaviour of balances) it's false.

The idea is dead.

You are the one who should just let it go.

 

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

[John Cuthber]

No matter.

Your idea is still dead.

Swansont's summary of this fact is quite a nice way of putting it

[swansont]

It doesn't matter that you can possibly shoehorn the Cavendish experiment to fit your hypothesis. There is a prediction that is not borne out by a wider sampling of data.

[illuusio]

Ok, I give a hand here

 

Rotation frequence is essential to "gravitation"

 

Enjoy!

[Greg H.]

Ok, I give a hand here

 

Rotation frequence is essential to "gravitation"

 

Enjoy!

 

While it looks a lot fancier, your second axiom, as was explained to you repeatedly here: Original Thread on This is not supported by experimental evidence, and you still haven't explained your equations fully, or provided derivations for them.

 

In other words, you've wrapped your previous pseudo-science in a shinier wrapper and dressed it up to look more sciencey, but it's still the same bunk it was before.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Illuusio

Stop hijacking this thread. You have already argued your ideas elsewhere - you do not have the option to reopen that debate in this thread which is discussing other poster's ideas.

any further posts on your own theory in this thread will be deleted.

[illuusio]

While it looks a lot fancier, your second axiom, as was explained to you repeatedly here: Original Thread on This is not supported by experimental evidence, and you still haven't explained your equations fully, or provided derivations for them.

 

In other words, you've wrapped your previous pseudo-science in a shinier wrapper and dressed it up to look more sciencey, but it's still the same bunk it was before.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread so I make it short. I have experimental evidence and an application (related to aviation) for my theory. It would be nice to unlock my previous thread or allow me to start a new one, thanks advance!

[pgharvey]

Since the op doesn't wish to discuss the issue any further, perhaps it's time for the trash for this thread.

 

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

[John Cuthber]

It isn't "vindictive" to throw yesterday's pizza box in the trash.

People do it because the box isn't really any use.

Same with this thread.

[pgharvey]

It isn't "vindictive" to throw yesterday's pizza box in the trash.

People do it because the box isn't really any use.

Same with this thread.

 

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?

 

 

[Greg H.]

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?

 

 

 

The only person being hysterical is you. The hyperbole and exaggeration is coming from you. You're resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than providing the confirmation we've asked you to provide. No one is treating this like a life or death event; we're simply asking that you supply enough information to decide if your theory has merit or not. If you cannot, or will not, do that, then the default position is to reject it in favor of the established theory and model which already accounts for the observed experimental data.