idontknowwhyijustknow on gravity

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

i think you will find that gravity is actually magnetism at a larger scale (the earth) and as all matter is possitvely or negatively charged in respect to earth we get the illusion of the so called weak gravity force present on the surface.

 

on another related topic why is it mass is considered the measure of matter and uses the si unit of kg's ? The unit of kg's is actually a force in particular the force with the si unit newton so the equation weight(newton) = mass(kg) x accel. of gravity is totally wrong its like saying force = force x accel. of g !!! To prove this simply weigh yourself on earth motionless and then weigh yourself in freefall this removes accel. of g out of the equation the difference is the force of gravity and only the force of gravity therefore proving that the kg measurement is not force exerted by the object(matter) but by earth.

 

 

Weight is a mere illusion that science seems determined to keep from the students by confusing them with two measurements for gravity kg's and newtons

[imatfaal]

i think you will find that gravity is actually magnetism at a larger scale (the earth) and as all matter is possitvely or negatively charged in respect to earth we get the illusion of the so called weak gravity force present on the surface.

 

Why do we never experience repulsive gravity then - all known gravity is attractive. We are attracted to the earth, we were also (for a few lucky astronauts attracted to the moon), and the moon is attracted to the earth - so how can that work with positive and negative?

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

magnestism is an attractive force only and it atrracts both male(+n) and female(-s) elements, magnets do not repulse. the real info is in understanding that mass(matter) does not and cannot have weight it only ever reacts to an magnetic(electromagnetic) force of the earth the equation weight equals mass x accel.of gravity is wrong

[imatfaal]

on another related topic why is it mass is considered the measure of matter and uses the si unit of kg's ? The unit of kg's is actually a force in particular the force with the si unit newton so the equation weight(newton) = mass(kg) x accel. of gravity is totally wrong its like saying force = force x accel. of g !!! To prove this simply weigh yourself on earth motionless and then weigh yourself in freefall this removes accel. of g out of the equation the difference is the force of gravity and only the force of gravity therefore proving that the kg measurement is not force exerted by the object(matter) but by earth.

 

 

Weight is a mere illusion that science seems determined to keep from the students by confusing them with two measurements for gravity kg's and newtons

 

You can easily detach measurement of mass from the effects of gravity - get a nice free-rolling cart and see how hard you need to push it to get it moving, now place a small mass on it and measure again, and slowly increase the mass. You will note that the force needed to get the same change in speed increases with the mass on it. FYG This would play out exactly the same if you were floating in deeeep deeep space - apart from the fact that you would have nothing to hold onto and you would go backwards as the cart moved forward.

 

Gravity is a force and thus is measured in Newtons. As the force on any object is also dependent on the mass of the object you can also call it an acceleration in ms^-2. There is no confusion - both are valid SI units. Weight can be a little confusing because on earth it can seem to be the same as mass - but if yo stick to SI units and thus mostly avoid weight and pounds etc you will be fine.

[Sensei]

magnestism is an attractive force only and it atrracts both male(+n) and female(-s) elements, magnets do not repulse.

 

Do you ever saw magnets in your life?

[imatfaal]

magnestism is an attractive force only and it atrracts both male(+n) and female(-s) elements, magnets do not repulse. the real info is in understanding that mass(matter) does not and cannot have weight it only ever reacts to an magnetic(electromagnetic) force of the earth the equation weight equals mass x accel.of gravity is wrong

 

No it isn't. Here is a little video of two stacks of magnets repelling each other

 

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

the mass your force is dependant upon you measure with kg's a scale perhaps as weight is approx zero at freefall the force gravity it at work with both you and the scale suggesting that matter has not kg's without the force of gravity so why does weight = kg's x accel of g when the kg's are zero without the newton force when we measure kgs we are actually measuring the same force and the as the newton force

oh the magnet thing i suggest you spend five years experimenting with magnets you might stop spouting that stuff you read

if two objects of equal mass and gravity are close to each other they will not attract each infact they will repel and yet only the attractive force is at work

 

work that one out!!

ok i know i sound like a narsacistic gunky . but i have spent a bit of time on this experimenting and the science itself contradict itself when you read deffinitions for mass weight and gravity and then theres the fact we still measure weight in kgs when its basic science that this is wrong why on earth are we teaching this stuff at schools

[imatfaal]

the mass your force is dependant upon you measure with kg's a scale perhaps as weight is approx zero at freefall the force gravity it at work with both you and the scale suggesting that matter has not kg's without the force of gravity so why does weight = kg's x accel of g when the kg's are zero without the newton force when we measure kgs we are actually measuring the same force and the as the newton force

 

I explained how to measure the mass without reliance on weighing - it is based on the idea that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational (this is an assumption). Please read my explanation before incorrectly asserting once again that we can only measure mass through gravitational interaction with the earth - ie weighing on scales

[Sensei]

the scale suggesting that matter has not kg's without the force of gravity

 

If you have f.e. 1 kg of water, it means there is 3.345*10^25 molecules of H₂O.

Which means there is 6.691*10^25 atoms of Hydrogen and 3.345*10^25 atoms of Oxygen.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Sensei

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

i would love to here other opinions always happy to admit im wrong but the example giving earlier with the weights added to a cart rolling down a hill doesnt remove gravity from the equation so the extra force still isnt coming from the weights you added but from earths gravitational force the kgs(weights) added are exposed to the force still

[imatfaal]

oh the magnet thing i suggest you spend five years experimenting with magnets you might stop spouting that stuff you read

if two objects of equal mass and gravity are close to each other they will not attract each infact they will repel and yet only the attractive force is at work

 

work that one out!!

 

Oh I love experimenting - and I tend to follow the results rather than trying to shoehorn them into an off-the-wall speculation. Please give an experiment you have performed that evidenced your wild claims.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

i love water

[imatfaal]

i would love to here other opinions always happy to admit im wrong but the example giving earlier with the weights added to a cart rolling down a hill doesnt remove gravity from the equation so the extra force still isnt coming from the weights you added but from earths gravitational force the kgs(weights) added are exposed to the force still

 

Re-read what I wrote

"You can easily detach measurement of mass from the effects of gravity - get a nice free-rolling cart and see how hard you need to push it to get it moving, now place a small mass on it and measure again, and slowly increase the mass. You will note that the force needed to get the same change in speed increases with the mass on it."

 

No mention of hill. Free-rolling means it rolls freely - if it were on a hill it would roll down it. This on a flat surface.

[Sensei]

i love water

 

You should.

It's good tool for scientists to measure masses of different atoms, especially metals.

You can do it during electrolysis of water with different metal electrodes, with voltage and amper meters connected and precise test tube with volume scale.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

my positive foot is atrracted to your possitive ar** lol

 

to obtain repulsion from magnets you place to north poles together right

if both poles are attracting south magnets in space then there isnt so much as repulsion creating the movement but attraction

if you take a circular magnet and attach a metal half sphere with a hole in it to the face on one side curved around towards the other pole but about 3 times the diameter of the magnet and repeat with another magnet opposite polarity then place these two half spheres a small distance apart open ends out(dependant on strength)

if you then place a series of small metall balls in the gap between the poles the metal balls will acquire attractive qualities but refuse to stay attracted as they form hexagonal patterns ( this is a form of attraction at close quarters but repulsive qualities with space

 

remind you of anything gravity attracts at close quarters but shows repulsive qualities at distance are you telling me gravity is a pushing force

your mass kgs is still under the influence of earths gravity not some mysterious resistance force found in matter ofcourse it requires more force to move you have added more force by adding matter you are implying that matter adds resistance to force but you can only measure this resistance with gravity acting on it

 

 

is it harder to lift 100kg in 0 gravity than 10 kg ? no then where is the resistance to force

there is no weight only matter and gravity

 

and can someone tell me why we teach in schools to weigh in kg's

[Sensei]

if you take a circular magnet and attach a metal half sphere with a hole in it

 

I have not magnetized piece of iron (in mine case it's 80 mm x 8 mm x 8 mm bar),

and attach to it small neodymium magnet (8 mm diameter 3 mm height cylinder, single one is powerful enough to hold 1 kg mass, just tested) from one end of iron bar,

whole surface of iron bar is becoming one large magnet.. it's attracting f.e. capacitors and needles that are on mine desk

Disconnect magnet, and iron bar is not longer attracting anything.

 

You should get such device for visualization of magnetic field lines (it's array of compasses):

 

 

 

It costs ~40 usd here.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Sensei

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

inertial mass is still reliant on gravitational force the only diff is its not reliant on gravitational acceleration and because you are measuring the force required to move mass at a set acceleration f=ma the force you are measuring is dependant on mass only this is why you think mass is being measured independant of gravity but if you repeat this experiment in 0 gravity the force doesnt change therefore gravity is the force changing the masses resistance to acceleration

 

you cant seperate kgs from gravity just because science measures it in newtons to do this

 

whether mesuring newtons or kgs makes no difference to the outcome f=ma mass has no weight or resistance to force without gravity

f=mg

[ACG52]

 

 

mass has no weight or resistance to force without gravity

While gravity is needed for weight, inertia is independent of gravity.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

While gravity is needed for weight, inertia is independent of gravity.

how can inertial mass be independant of gravity when no more force is needed to move a larger mass in 0 gravity

 

please give an experimental example which shows that the force required to accelerate a larger mass on earth is independant of gravity just because a mass isnt in gravitational fall it is still subject to gravity therefore any increase in resistance due to extra matter must allow for the force gravity in its equation? f=ma doesnt allow for it am i wrong?

[ACG52]

 

 

how can inertial mass be independant of gravity when no more force is needed to move a larger mass in 0 gravity

Because force is needed to move mass in free fall. Ask any shuttle astronaut.

 

 

 

please give an experimental example which shows that the force required to accelerate a larger mass on earth is independant of gravity

We're not talking about 'on earth'. Mass in free fall has the same inertial resistance to a change in motion as does mass which is not falling.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

thats correct but if you add more mass you dont get get more inertial resistance unless in gravity ?

 

doesnt that mean the second law doesnt take gravity into account but should ?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Posts in this thread were split from here.

 

idontknowwhyijustknow, please try and keep posts in the main area of the science forum in line with mainstream and accepted science. Anything else belongs here in Speculations.

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

when an object is in fall it it suggested it looses weight

 

weight n = m x g if gravity is 0 weight remains 0 no matter how much mass you have

 

inertiall mass f = m x a to calculate f to a set acceleration with a changing mass assumes that the mass is changing the force and therefore is independant of gravity

 

here we are measuring the force required to move the mass rather than the force acting on mass in gravity however under gravitational field this equation doesnt take gravity into account and more so in 0 gravity it assumes mass exerts some resistance force to that acting(measured) on it

 

where is this resistance force found in mass in 0 gravity when mass doesnt effect force in 0 gravity

[Schneibster]

The best answer to the OP is, I think, "yes."

 

i mean to be somewhat amusing, but not sarcastic; in fact, it can be interpreted either way, theoretically.

 

However, although we've figured out how to represent it as a field theory (General Relativity), we have not figured out how to represent it as a quantum theory (Quantum Gravity), and thus we cannot even imagine its Gravity Quantum Field Theory. We can only speculate, and try to constrain whatever eventual quantum gravity theory we will eventually, when we figure out the math, discover.

 

This theory will obviously deal with quantization of the universe that we perceive as a superposition of fields. Techniques as powerful as the Yukawa coupling theory that allows scalar fields to be related to four dimensional tensor fields like the Dirac field that describes fermions will be required. We can, in fact, knowing what types of fields are involved, make good conjectures about what a final theory will look like based on what we have now. We are, in other words, quite close. We may in fact already know the required techniques and not yet have applied them in the correct manner.

 

I don't expect to be famous or figure anything out, but I think someone might before the day I die. This is a truly awesome time to live; I have seen the confirmation of the Big Bang, and of the Inflationary Epoch. I am stoked.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Schneibster

[idontknowwhyijustknow]

im not trying to debunk these laws i know they work at have been well tested im simply stating that gravity is measured twice in the equation n = m x g

 

the only reason i can see why we do this is because we assume matter to aquire weight as we feel weight. however if you realise that when you lift a child its not his matter we experience as force but a reaction to gravity the matter has

 

gravity is force

matter simply reacts to it

inertial mass experiments measure force and matter reacts to that force just like it reacts to gravity we cant differentiate from this because we are under the influence of gravity ourselfs when testing it

 

mass only ever reacts to force it cannot change force we are looking at this problem wrongly because our brains think matter is solid and heavy