Gravitational Observation and Hypothesis , first observed by Mathematician ' EULER'

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

EULER's DISC

 

 

Parts of the heavy steel disc, keep falling under gravity towards the level mirror surface ( 90 degrees to radial gravity field line towards centre of the Earth ) . See picture. The disc keeps falling around its circumference , but never makes it. So the disc continues to spin a long time. Only the surface contact resistance uses up the potential and kinetic energy , for it to eventually stop. ( Not really a spin , more a slow turning as the fast falling oscillations occur. )

 

I have made a related observation : occasionally if china dishes are haphazardly laid on a hard granite surface , one plate will occasionally , rock back and forward almost indefinitely , going click, click, click.....again sides of the plate falling this side then that side , this side then that side , under the influence of gravity .

 

That is the ' OBSERVATION '

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP]

'ALMOST' indefinitely'

 

So it stops after a time as expected due to loss of energy through friction. How long does it take? What is your point here?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

'ALMOST' indefinitely'

 

So it stops after a time as expected due to loss of energy through friction. How long does it take? What is your point here?

.

I think this observation , has within it's highly balanced operation ,the makings of a ' good hypothesis ' for part of the nature of GRAVITY .

 

Mike

 

Ps I will time both the disc and the plates ,and give you the figures. Long was sufficient for me to come up with the hypothesis , but I will get the numbers for you .

 

The hypothesis in principle is that this observation tends to point at Gravity as not being ' spooky action at a distance ' , but rather a ' Local ' phenomenon. Due to the precision , needed and demonstrated , by the clear balance provided by both the Euler Disc and the rocking dish. So rather than having to be feeling some difference effect transmitted by a giant object some vast distance away . That field or distortion is already set up across the universe . The local field is in place. So a near perfect and precise balance is easily achieved locally , by a precisely machined metal block or a crafted piece of china, both operating on a solid well machined mirror surface or crafted flat surface( eg granite kitchen work top ) It does not have to depend on some gravitational path across space which could be prone to the equivalent of atmospheric distortion seen with light images through the atmosphere. So provided the disc or in the case of a china dish is given the initial impulse, it will spin, fall, or rock in a very balanced perpetuated way.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

So rather than having to be feeling some difference effect transmitted by a giant object some vast distance away . That field or distortion is already set up across the universe . The local field is in place.

 

How are these two ideas mutually exclusive? Why can't we have a local field that originated from a remote source?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How are these two ideas mutually exclusive? Why can't we have a local field that originated from a remote source?

Well I think that is it . We can and do have ( I am hypothesising ) , a local field , intact , set up from all these remote bodies . But in a way, the local conditions are identical, not wavering because a straight path is beating its way to each individual location locally , subject to millions of miles of slightly different ' interference'. A bit like the national grid, yes it's sort of a long way away , yet although the local supply indirectly comes from the national grid , it has its own transformer and everybody on that street or local transformer has the identical voltage . So I am saying the gravitational field is identical locally . Thus this very precise and accurate balance is easily achieved locally ( across a plate or across Eulers disk ) .

.

The other contribution to this idea, was listening to a Richard Feynman lecture where he spoke about metronomes and fish in a shoal . Where they all move in beautiful swirls. He said there was NO OVERAL guiding field, all there was, was the individual neighbouring fish , how they dealt with the shoal was only through their local neighbour fish.

 

So in the greater context, nothing goes anywhere, it is all local. The only thing that goes anywhere, is if there is change. Then waves go across space . To effect a local change , sooner or later depending on distance .

 

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well I think that is it . We can and do have ( I am hypothesising ) , a local field , intact , set up from all these remote bodies .

 

So when you wrote "rather than" you were writing the opposite of what you meant. ("rather than" implying one is true, but not the other)

 

This is one reason that equations are better than hand-wavy descriptions.

 

Let's shortcut this. Are you going to end up somewhere other than F = -GMm/r² ? If not, what does your idea bring to the table?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Let's shortcut this. Are you going to end up somewhere other than F = -GMm/r² ? If not, what does your idea bring to the table?

 

That , in a way is the point .

 

If you were to use this formula twice , one of each side of the balancing item ( disc or plate) , you might over time have a fluctuating value for force as each side would have to have its own path back to the gravity causing body , which could be thousands or millions of miles away , each path subject to its own distinct interference or path length.

 

If on the other hand , what I am saying is. You end up with a reliable local field where values are exact and reliable

 

What it brings to the table , is a slightly different / additional view of Gravity. Rather than this remote , faraway view of gravity. We can think of gravity as being a locally induced value field , which has uniform ,precise values across short distances, should that be important. I suppose if all you are doing is working with planets and stars it does not matter. But if you wish to make use of local , very precise and very level surfaces, it could be relevant .

 

Mike

 

Ps this is well illustrated in occasional broadcast port scenes. Without this fast forward picture. The sea , looks like the sea , like the sea.

 

If you watch a speeded up version, it is staggering how flat it is . As the boats skim about dead flat .

So all this would suggest to me . The whole universe is full of something akin to a sea. People other than me have suggested all sorts of vacuum energy, energy density , dark energy ,dark matter .

 

It would strike me if all that lot is spread out everywhere , there is enough to make up a sort of sea. That's before you start adding all the stars , galaxies, and other hot matter , that up till recently we assumed that was all there was . Now we have this sea of stuff that everybody Is working on .

 

Well if the gravitational effect of all the normal matter , makes itself felt remotely with the formula (. F = -GMm/r2. ) that allows for my hypothesis to in principle work locally in the middle of this sea.

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP]

The force won't fluctuate, I'm certain it will stick precicely to the GxM1M2/r2 rule. I'm still not sure what your point here is. We can predict the effects of gravity, they are well defined.

 

Have fun contemplating such things though. Bye.

[swansont]

That , in a way is the point .

 

If you were to use this formula twice , one of each side of the balancing item ( disc or plate) , you might over time have a fluctuating value for force as each side would have to have its own path back to the gravity causing body , which could be thousands or millions of miles away , each path subject to its own distinct interference or path length.

DrP just beat me to this, but I agree: where do you get this concept from GMm/r²?

 

That says the force depends on mass and separation distance. Nothing else. There is no changing path or interference. That's stuff you are making up.

 

 

If on the other hand , what I am saying is. You end up with a reliable local field where values are exact and reliable

IOW, the status quo.

 

What it brings to the table , is a slightly different / additional view of Gravity. Rather than this remote , faraway view of gravity. We can think of gravity as being a locally induced value field , which has uniform ,precise values across short distances, should that be important. I suppose if all you are doing is working with planets and stars it does not matter. But if you wish to make use of local , very precise and very level surfaces, it could be relevant .

 

Mike

Kinda like having a fixed value for the acceleration, and using F=ma. Which we could write as F = mg.

 

Yeah, we've been doing that for a long time.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

DrP just beat me to this, but I agree: where do you get this concept from GMm/r²?

That says the force depends on mass and separation distance. Nothing else. There is no changing path or interference. That's stuff you are making up.

 

 

IOW, the status quo.

 

 

Kinda like having a fixed value for the acceleration, and using F=ma. Which we could write as F = mg.

Yeah, we've been doing that for a long time.

 

 

Yes, but I hate to say it , you are immediately reverting to maths , I am dealing with concepts of my observation. Which if you have never experienced it it striking . Find a stone very level flat work top . Start casually putting about china plates and saucers in small heaps . Suddenly one will go " ti,ti,ti,ti,ti,......you think it is going to go on for ever , it's extraordinary ! There is some very precise balanced bouncing forces at work . This is local , this has not wandered across 1000's 1,000,000 's miles of empty space. This is a local quiet spot in a heaving , absolutely massive universe.

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes, but I hate to say it , you are immediately reverting to maths , I am dealing with concepts of my observation. Which if you have never experienced it it striking . Find a stone very level flat work top . Start casually putting about china plates and saucers in small heaps . Suddenly one will go " ti,ti,ti,ti,ti,......you think it is going to go on for ever , it's extraordinary ! There is some very precise balanced bouncing forces at work . This is local , this has not wandered across 1000's 1,000,000 's miles of employ space. This is a local quiet spot in a heaving , absolutely massive universe.

 

Mike

 

 

It's a huge leap from that to an idea of gravity.

[Strange]

There is some very precise balanced bouncing forces at work . This is local , this has not wandered across 1000's 1,000,000 's miles of employ space. This is a local quiet spot in a heaving , absolutely massive universe.

 

There is a constant force there due to the presence of the entire mass of the Earth underneath. This force can be treated as if it comes from a point about 6,000km away. There will also be a contribution from the stone worktop, Moon, the Sun, Jupiter, Betelgeuse, the Andromeda galaxy and the rest of the universe. These all become increasingly insignificant (which is good, because they are all changing constantly). If you wanted to use maths, you could work out exactly how insignificant each one is.

 

As it is, you seem to be saying that, locally, you can treat gravity as a constant force, even though its source may be a long way away. That is often true. But not always: consider tides, for example.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is a constant force there due to the presence of the entire mass of the Earth underneath. This force can be treated as if it comes from a point about 6,000km away. There will also be a contribution from the stone worktop, Moon, the Sun, Jupiter, Betelgeuse, the Andromeda galaxy and the rest of the universe. These all become increasingly insignificant (which is good, because they are all changing constantly). If you wanted to use maths, you could work out exactly how insignificant each one is.

 

As it is, you seem to be saying that, locally, you can treat gravity as a constant force, even though its source may be a long way away. That is often true. But not always: consider tides, for example.

.

I am not so sure I am saying it is constant , I am saying it is local . In other words the ' thing' or ' force' , is as if it is there just inches away , I can figuratively touch it, feel it . Now should conditions change like you say the sun comes into play with the tides, well I expect the effect of the suns gravity to take its time getting to the earth , whether by wave , by pushing or pulling intermediate space , with all its occupancy of , vacuum energy , dark matter, dark energy and whatever else you guys have identified recently into a soup of interspace 'stuff' . But when the effect of the suns gravity in its tidal form journeys out across this 'stuff' it will arrive and my rocking saucer may take a bit of a wobble with this late arrival. When I as a saucer look out for gravity , I am saying , I don't see the sun , or the earth beneath my feet ,

 

I see my 'local gravity representative , whatever that looks like . A 'localidarkenergyvacuummatteron ' or whatever that local neighbour 'is . '

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I am not so sure I am saying it is constant , I am saying it is local .

 

Well, obviously it has a an effect everywhere, which would include locally to you. So what?

 

Locally, space-time is curved by a constant amount, due to the mass of the Earth. This is what you experience as a "force". The components of this (e.g. time dilation) can be measured locally.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Strange

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well, obviously it has a an effect everywhere, which would include locally to you. So what?

Well the picture that is painted generally, say of the gravitational fields of the sun and the earth. Are of great swirling field lines that cross empty space and intercept earth. Or come up through the earth , similar to magnetic fields that intercept whatever location you happen to be at.

 

What I am trying to say ( hypothesising ) is it's not like that. That space is full to overflowing with (darkenergyvacuummatteron) and we , wherever we are to receive the effect of gravity from these disparate places , do not see , what I said above , we just see the local border or edge of this (.darkenergyvacuummatteron )

 

Mike

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

Locality has a specific meaning in physics. It is a causally connected distance, Mike.

The gravitational fields from far-away galaxies/stars/etc. are set and stable. They change very little as changes in gravity only propagate at light speed.

So on galactic scales, where even fast motion is miniscule compared to the distances involved, gravitational fields are very 'stable' and do little, if any, 'swirling' and 'intercepting'. The sun, for example 'sees' a large but very slowly changing galactic gravitational well.

At much smaller distances, where masses move comparatively quickly, the gravitational fields are much smaller. A mass that is accelerated has to change its gravitational field. But if it is accelerated such that the propagation delay of the change is non trivial, then the mass ( and field ) must be extremely small, i.e. the effect is still unmeasurably small. In this case, a particle moving around a cyclotron at close to c, has a rapidly changing, but negligible gravitational signature.

[Acme]

This looks to me like a thinly veiled attempt to restart the just-closed thread on math being unsafe. Here we go again.

[swansont]

Is there any part of this discussion that complies with our guidelines? Mind you, I'm not suggesting a part is in violation, I'm suggesting that possibly all of it is.

 

1. "you need to back up your position and will be expected to do so" coupled with "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?"

-nope.

 

2. Abstract? Nope again.

 

3. Math? Of course not.

 

4. "be familiar with the area of science into which your idea would fit" in order to "explain what new ground you're covering". Nope again. You've misrepresented the current theory.

 

5. Responding to criticism of your ideas? This may be the closest to being followed; you have responded but thus far you've repeated assertions without really addressing objections or corrections.

 

So out of five requirements, you have perhaps half a point.

 

You are free to ask questions about how Euler's disk works. You can ask about gravity. But the instant you assert that you have some new science to share, you need to have the discussion rise to the fairly low threshold as outlined. We have announced what is necessary to have a conversation here, and this doesn't come close.