Gravity could still be a pushing force

[Popcorn Sutton]

The claims I make are interesting because they can be investigated, if I'm wrong then great, I don't care whether I'm right or wrong, but my mind, the way it is and has been, spends at least 50% of my waking time thinking about science. I got a new topic that might be controversial, I'll be publishing it soon in speculations so keep your eye out.

 

As for the pushing or pulling argument, it seems that it is at a stalemate. I've presented using tides and atmospheric ridges to check either force, but in the end, it hasn't really led to a clear distinction of whether it is either. It wouldve been nice to make a conclusion, but at least I've made sn argument. I'm no longer worried about my academic standing, I just don't want to get banned and provide insight where I can. I also hope to learn sometimes so it's hard for me to refrain on certain things.

 

I like what you said about the point in space pulling, I'm leaning towards gravity being both a push and a pull force, but more so a pushing force. I don't like spacetime curvature, but if space has a consistency like jello in some way, then I can accept it.

 

Earlier, I was thinking that maybe the push is coming from above and below the solar system rather than from the edges, the pull-like effect may be coming from the linear edges of the solar system.

[swansont]

I also hope to learn sometimes so it's hard for me to refrain on certain things.

 

 

Clinging to an explanation after it's been debunked does not fall in the category of learning.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I do not purposely appeal to tradition. That is a fallacy.

 

So gravity is neither a pushing not a pulling force. I'm not willing to accept that it's the curvature of spacetime, that is like saying that infinity exists.

 

It cannot be observed that is and therefor will never be answered

[swansont]

I do not purposely appeal to tradition. That is a fallacy.

 

Who said anything about tradition?

 

So gravity is neither a pushing not a pulling force. I'm not willing to accept that it's the curvature of spacetime, that is like saying that infinity exists.

 

It cannot be observed that is and therefor will never be answered

 

That's argument from personal incredulity — the demand of specific evidence, or class of evidence, and deciding it's wrong because you don't understand. In one sense you are being obtuse, because nobody claimed we can observe the curvature, but then, I don't see a lot of claims that we can observe gravity itself, even with Newtonian gravity. We observe the effects of gravity, and if you phrase things that way, then you are simply wrong. We can observe the effects of curvature, because the model based on curvature makes some very specific predictions. Things like deflection of light around the sun, effects on time at different gravitational potentials, and other things.

[Popcorn Sutton]

When you say "effects on time" I think that if c is actually the maximum speed for anything, then it would make more sense because of friction. I have to assume that space is fricative no matter how dense. If that is the case, then only certain things can exist at certain speeds or else they would be reduced depending on the fricativity of the substance surrounding them.

[John Cuthber]

"The claims I make are interesting because they can be investigated"

No, they are not interesting.

They are drivel, because they are (from the point of view of anyone with some understanding of physics) obviously rubbish from the start.

 

For example , when you say "I think that if c is actually the maximum speed for anything, then it would make more sense because of friction." you are clearly talking bollocks because the effects of friction are well understood.

Just for a start, they don't impose an upper limit on the speed of things.

Why don't you go and learn some science rather than posting stuff that might as well say "I think that all tables are made by teddy bears" or "all hot things are green".

[swansont]

When you say "effects on time" I think that if c is actually the maximum speed for anything, then it would make more sense because of friction. I have to assume that space is fricative no matter how dense. If that is the case, then only certain things can exist at certain speeds or else they would be reduced depending on the fricativity of the substance surrounding them.

 

Then you obviously haven't thought things through. Friction is a dissipative force that does path-dependent work. It would continually rob things of energy as they moved through space, and we don't see this.

 

Models predict behavior, so they have ramifications. Part of the process of science is to investigate the ramifications. Usually that involves doing an experiment to test the model under certain conditions. But you are offering models for which testing has already been done, falsifying the model. That doesn't fall into the category of "interesting"

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

spends at least 50% of my waking time thinking about science.

 

How can you "think about science" when you don't know anything about science?

 

Even the simplest stuff..

 

If you don't want to learn science from books, make your own experiments, real not thought experiments. Thought experiments are for experts.

You can repeat at really low cost almost every experiment made before XX century.

Cost of lasers, prisms, mirrors, video camera etc etc is minimal..

Edited April 14, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok I was afraid I might be wrong. Or at least seem wrong. Or I might be using my words wrong. Maybe friction want the best word to use, but following the idea of this thread, I wanted to avoid the use of "gravity". Gravity can have a fricative effect on the surrounding environment. When something is within the gravitational force of jupiter, but moving away from it, it is being slowed down. We haven't made a bowling ball go the speed of light yet so technically I'm not wrong, the judgment is just suspended for now.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[John Cuthber]

"Gravity can have a fricative effect on the surrounding environment."

No it can't.

Gravity is a conservative field, friction isn't.

 

BTW, everything in the observable universe is within the gravitational field of Jupiter

"We haven't made a bowling ball go the speed of light yet so technically I'm not wrong"

Oh yes you are.

Repeatedly.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I havent observed or seen any evidence to the contrary of my claims, that is why I am making them.

 

As far as I know, no one has even looked for an atmospheric ridge. On top of that, the tides are high on both sides of the planet. This doesn't prove my OP wrong. The only reason I am aware of that someone could accuse me of being wrong is that I am speaking out of my field of expertise. Even then, it's arguable. I research, think, and watch the science channel everyday. I let it run while I sleep. I could be an expert by hobby. I know that I've at least proposed hypotheses/theories that have become widely accepted and talked about amongst famous intellectuals. All I originally intended with this thread was to see the current nature of the hypothesis of gravity, the rest has been razzle dazzle (which is a fallacy more widely known as a red herring). So therefor, you are wrong, and for the moment, the claims I have made have suspended judgment at least. Show me visual evidence that proves me wrong and I will leave this hypothesis behind.

 

Btw, no one commented on my equation.

[John Cuthber]

"I havent observed or seen any evidence to the contrary of my claims"

Yes you have, you just didn't realise.

For example, have you noticed that it's easier to ride a bike down hill than up?

That's because gravity is a conservative field.

"As far as I know, no one has even looked for an atmospheric ridge."

Shows how little you know. Atmospheric tides are well enough known to those who study such thing.

 

"The only reason I am aware of that someone could accuse me of being wrong is that I am speaking out of my field of expertise. Even then, it's arguable. "

trust me, there's no real argument. You are wrong because you are wrong.

 

"I research, think, and watch the science channel everyday. I let it run while I sleep." try watching it while awake; you might learn something.

[md65536]

For example, have you noticed that it's easier to ride a bike down hill than up?

That's because gravity is a conservative field.

How does it being a conservative field have anything to do with that?

Edit: Never mind, I think I see your point now.

Edited April 14, 2013 by md65536

[Popcorn Sutton]

If gravity is mostly a pushing force, then opening a sail as big as the moon at the distance of the moon from earth should have the same effect on the tides as the moon.

 

And to john cuthberts point about gravity being a conservative field, you can say the same thing about buoyancy

Edited April 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[SplitInfinity]

If gravity is mostly a pushing force, then opening a sail as big as the moon at the distance of the moon from earth should have the same effect on the tides as the moon.

 

And to john cuthberts point about gravity being a conservative field, you can say the same thing about buoyancy

 

For something to either be pushing or pulling matter...there would have to be some kind of interaction with the matters orbitting electron fields.

 

In the case of Gravity...this is not so because Gravity is a word to describe how any amount of Matter warps Space/Time geometry...and not only is matter effected by gravity but energy as well such as how light or Photons can be seen following the Gravitational Warping of Space/Time by Celestial Bodies.

 

Bouyancy...or when an object or matter obtains bouyancy is due to...in either water or atmosphere...the objects displacement of the water or air being an area that if filled with another gas or material that was lighter than either water or air being displaced...would cause it to float.

 

Thus a ballon filled with Helium...the second lest amount of mass Element...will become bouyant in our atmosphere because the air it displaces is heaver than it being filled with helium.

 

Split Infinity

[Mellinia]

If gravity is mostly a pushing force, then opening a sail as big as the moon at the distance of the moon from earth should have the same effect on the tides as the moon.

 

And to john cuthberts point about gravity being a conservative field, you can say the same thing about buoyancy

Buoyancy force is not a field.

What produces the effect of gravity on us, in your claim that gravity is a pushing force?

Edited April 15, 2013 by Mellinia

[Popcorn Sutton]

Squishing the environment produces a gravity like effect in my opinion. My bet is that if we were full of helium instead of oxygen, we would weigh less and maybe float, but instead, we are stuck on the ground because we're not buoyant enough.

[Mellinia]

Squishing the environment produces a gravity like effect in my opinion. My bet is that if we were full of helium instead of oxygen, we would weigh less and maybe float, but instead, we are stuck on the ground because we're not buoyant enough.

 

 

A free body force analysis on the earth might have to take into account of buoyancy caused by air, but in free space, we feel the effects of gravity all the same.

 

I'm praying that this would not be another troll thread though.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Mellinia

[Popcorn Sutton]

There will be trolls. I try not to troll though, you can tell by all the falsifiers I've proposed.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

I was going to post a simple idea why gravity is also a pushing force based on Einstein’s model. (It is actually there included, but nobody seems to see it.)
But as long such users as John Cuthber is allowed to destroy any discussion I will not do it in this forum. (Ich werfe keine Perlen vor die Säue.)
His “profound scientific arguments” are “You are wrong because you are wrong” (above no 62) or
“But the point is that, while you ignore basic physics, your posts will not mean anything and will be written off as mumbo jumbo.
(By which I mean very obscure and not meaningful or not true).”
Killing a discussion about a theory which is already proven by experiments and observations!

(His comrade from germany react only 1.5 hours later by stopping the discussion!)

It is never a harm if somebody post some wrong ideas.
Real scientists know a prove that something is wrong or impossible is also precious knowledge!
But John Cuthuber destroys everything. He can not longer tolerated in this forum.

First somebody has to clean up this forum or science is lost in this forum.

 

Greetings from Florida (but no greetings to germany)

Edited April 15, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[swansont]

It is never a harm if somebody post some wrong ideas.

 

That's not the issue. It's defending them after the ideas have been shown to be wrong.

 

A quick recap of a few arguments:

If gravity is a push, what is the source of the push? It has to be far away, since gravity has an infinite range. Not only that, since I'm on a rotating planet, the source has to be moving infinitely fast to stay above me. As JC asked, what am I pushing against, since forces act in pairs? Then there was the failed prediction of tides, because Popcorn's model apparently had shielding in it.

 

These are failures of the model. You cannot validly claim it is "already proven by experiments and observations"

[Popcorn Sutton]

I agree, john cuthber done several things to destroy an otherwise perfectly good conversation. I'm afraid that the admins are paying him to post, which is even worse than having him troll the way he does. It's disruptive and degrading especially when his attitude becomes contagious. They closed a separate thread of mine because he didn't see any value in discussing it. I thought the discussion could have been interesting.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

wolfhart willimczik and popcorn sutton

 

OK - discussion of other posters and their motivations stops now! We are here to debate science not to criticise other members.

 

To be clear - describing a notion posted in speculations as word salad, nonsense, or mumbo jumbo is NOT a personal attack and is not contrary to our rules; although it would always be better if such statements are supported. Do not respond to such a post as an insult; on the contrary - try to explain, preferably with evidence and maths, why your idea is valid and worth further inquiry.

 

Also for the avoidance of doubt - threads are closed by moderators (acting jointly most of the time and solo on occassions); experts, whilst their opinion and knowledge are highly regarded, do not have the ability to close threads.

 

Back to the topic please. And to avoid derailing this thread further - please do not reply to this moderation within the thread. You may report this post if you feel it is unjust.

 

[md65536]

That's not the issue. It's defending them after the ideas have been shown to be wrong.

 

A quick recap of a few arguments:

If gravity is a push, what is the source of the push? It has to be far away, since gravity has an infinite range. Not only that, since I'm on a rotating planet, the source has to be moving infinitely fast to stay above me. As JC asked, what am I pushing against, since forces act in pairs? Then there was the failed prediction of tides, because Popcorn's model apparently had shielding in it.

Asking a question about an idea and having it be ignored doesn't prove the idea is wrong. Especially when the question is based on an assumption, eg. that the source of a push force would have to be a single point and thus move fast.

 

Some of the ideas I think have been shown to be wrong. Others have only been questioned, and the requirement that the ideas be backed up has been neglected. I guess this is what "not even wrong" means, where ideas and claims are just piled on, without even enough explanation or specification enough that they can be proved right or wrong.

 

Also I guess that's why the forum rules are as they are, because you can't explain every step of how to usefully reason about science, when any attempt to do so is ignored.

[swansont]

Asking a question about an idea and having it be ignored doesn't prove the idea is wrong. Especially when the question is based on an assumption, eg. that the source of a push force would have to be a single point and thus move fast.

But those are the sort of questions being posed, and either not working out or not answered at all. The sorts of things that have to be answered to advance the idea past this stage, because their absences are fundamental shortcomings.

 

Some of the ideas I think have been shown to be wrong. Others have only been questioned, and the requirement that the ideas be backed up has been neglected. I guess this is what "not even wrong" means, where ideas and claims are just piled on, without even enough explanation or specification enough that they can be proved right or wrong.

And a wrong prediction demands a modification to the model, which has not happened.