A simple bench top experiment with GRAVITY . Is there anything there?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm not sure. They generally manage to avoid outright pseudoscience but they do like to report the more way-out speculative ideas (they sell better). And they don't often make it clear that it is not generally accepted (and won't follow up when it turns out to be wrong).

 

And they love front page headlines like "Einstein was wrong" (of course, when you read the article it says nothing of the sort).

 

So I would take anything I read in there with a pinch of salt, and try and find another source or review before taking it too seriously.

 

I think Scientific American, for example, has much higher standards, and is one of the best popular science magazines out there. The articles are often written by the scientists who did the work. And they usually try to make it clear when they are using an analogy to explain something.

.

Well I do not disagree, I like to get hold of both Scientific America ( when I can afford it and find it among all the other 10,000 magazines) as well as New Scientist . All ideas , are useful to sift through , when you are dealing with subjects , like gravity , which seem to fall into the ' totally unknown ' , category . I cannot get over , the fact that the most significant effect, we live with in our lives, our transport , our functioning , our environment , our universe , YET , we know so little about :-

 

Why it is , how it is and. What it is , in reality ? GRAVITY ?

 

I am currently reading CALEB SCHART's. book " Gravity's Engines "

 

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Not all ideas nor all ways of expressing an idea are equal. Often the media interpretation, which is what new scientist is, is not even wrong.

 

We can model gravity very accurately with gr or Newtonian gravity.

[swansont]

 

I think Scientific American, for example, has much higher standards, and is one of the best popular science magazines out there. The articles are often written by the scientists who did the work. And they usually try to make it clear when they are using an analogy to explain something.

 

 

It's good, but still pop-science. Some years ago they did an entire issue on time, and one of the journalists contacted my boss for info and later to fact-check the article, which is good.

 

The New Scientist is a fairly reputable Science Journal surely ?

 

No. The articles are written by journalists and not scientists, which is why it's not a journal.

[Strange]

What it is , in reality ? GRAVITY ?

 

Science cannot answer that. (About gravity, or anything else.)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Not all ideas nor all ways of expressing an idea are equal. Often the media interpretation, which is what new scientist is, is not even wrong.

We can model gravity very accurately with gr or Newtonian gravity.

.

That is O.K., if you are a mathematician . I need to speak to a scientist , across a table , and ask him/her ?

Yes but what are you saying is actually happening here, and get them to explain . Usually , when pressed they will say something like " well the way I imagine it, or envision it happening is " ........................" But the formula...... Yes . Ok but how is that showing itself ...........

Well .... They say ... When I try to imagine what's happening , I think of ......"

 

So most of us sooner or later want to imagine ' roughly what's happening '

 

As of yet , I have no real picture in my mind as to what is there , doing what with gravity , apart from some form of invisible attraction ?

 

Can you possibly describe some form of image of things happening ?

 

Why does it have to be , such a secret , when such an entity is so so prominent in our lives ?

 

Mike

 

Ps for instance the phrase above quote

 

" We can model gravity very accurately with gr or Newtonian gravity."

 

I want to go away and paint a picture of that sentence , and put a paragraph of explanation under my painting .

 

What picture would I paint , and what paragraph of words would I put under it . To be our good explanation of Gravity ?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

As you've been told that's not science.

 

I think it's probably the invisible, unmeasurable gravity piskies. They wear purple hats.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As you've been told that's not science.

I think it's probably the invisible, unmeasurable gravity piskies. They wear purple hats.

.

Very funny . Lol . That's made my day !

 

But seriously , someone out there , must surely , clearly know , and some one who is going about their daily lives , content with an internal satisfaction , of what is going on in the entire universe from particles, to clods of matter, to planets, to galaxies to black holes , the universe as a whole ,

Gravity is in control . But HOW ? How is it doing it ?

 

In pictures and words ?

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

That is O.K., if you are a mathematician . I need to speak to a scientist , across a table , and ask him/her ?

 

 

 

You have a number of scientists here telling you that.

 

Experiments are compared to predictions. You are testing a model to see if the model works. But there's nothing about the experiment that tells you what's actually happening. Gravity could really be invisible pink fairies pushing things around. There's no way to disprove that.

[Strange]

As of yet , I have no real picture in my mind as to what is there , doing what with gravity , apart from some form of invisible attraction ?

 

In nearly all cases, that is the best image you can have. All you need to add is that the attraction is proportional to the mass of the two bodies involved, and that it falls off with the square of distance (in the same way that a light gets fainter as it gets further away).

 

These are both quite intuitive results. More massive object weigh more (i.e. more attraction) and more massive planets have more gravity (all other things been equal).

 

And with increasing distance, the attraction is spread out over more area (and the area increases by the square of the distance).

[Klaynos]

Experiments are compared to predictions. You are testing a model to see if the model works. But there's nothing about the experiment that tells you what's actually happening. Gravity could really be invisible pink fairies pushing things around. There's no way to disprove that.

You wouldn't catch me calling piskies fairies though. They get very grumpy about that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This has generated in me the picture of those sweet , meek looking , smiling people in the film, book " the time machine" probably H G Wells

 

Here the time machine operator went far into the future of the earth . He found all these , innocent , sweet , people on the earths surface , going around smiling , eating , and being nice . NOT KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON .

 

Under, the ground , in the caves , were these nasty , horrid looking , half human looking , evil looking beings

KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON , in fact would go up , sometimes at night and eat and capture odd ones of the smiling people .

 

Mike

 

This is still not giving me a real picture of what is coming out of Matter , mass , to spread out with inverse square law value? If anything is even coming out at all ?

 

There must be somebody , somewhere , who knows what's going on , surely ?

 

Are we looking for something Too Big .

 

I have just had the electric board putting in a new energy efficient meter . He showed me the dial . It said . Look 1 p , that's not much he said . Per how long I said . Oh per minute or hour if you set it differently . I said hang about . 1 p per minute is 10 p for 10 minutes , 1 pound for 100 minutes , that's a few pounds a day , 365 days a year that's a lot of money £ 1000 a year . 1 p to £ 1000 over the time of a year . Unbelievable.

 

So gravity is small in small things like particles , but becomes hugh in large things like planets , and incredibly large in Suns , and impossibly large in black holes and singularities. .

 

So , is what we as persons experience as gravity normally, because of an incredible large numbers of particles in us, as well as the even larger numbers of particles in the earth ? Also presumably if there are two very large masses , say the moon and the earth , the force due to gravity is very , very large , between them .

 

.This from equation force = G (m1 x m2)/r squared where G is the gravitational constant .

m1 and m2 the different masses and r the distance between them

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Now to the experiment with saucers and gravity. Because of the delicacy of balancing saucers. We have an ideal setting for dealing with a small number of particles in balance. Where gravity tips the balance. Bounces and tips the balance . With just a few particles . This in the immense field of GRAVITY.

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

 

We have an ideal setting for dealing with a small number of particles in balance.

 

You have billions of particles involved. How many atoms do you think there are in the plate?

[imatfaal]

Now to the experiment with saucers and gravity. Because of the delicacy of balancing saucers. We have an ideal setting for dealing with a small number of particles in balance. Where gravity tips the balance. Bounces and tips the balance . With just a few particles . This in the immense field of GRAVITY.

 

Mike

 

Haven't we done this already

 

 

You have billions of particles involved. How many atoms do you think there are in the plate?

 

It is gonna be around order of 10 to the 22 atoms for every gram - so Billions in a metaphorical sense of large number but millions of billions of billions of billions of atoms in the counting sense. And each atom is of course...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You have billions of particles involved. How many atoms do you think there are in the plate?

I have an intuitive feeling that there is something here ! I have made the observation , I have proposed an hypothesis , now I am doing a test , to uncover an " in principle idea"

 

 

 

In the state that these China plates stack . The top plate will be just at the 'tipping point ' , a bit like two children on a see - saw . They are able to gently balance so that no one has to go down . On this crude fulcrum. It is not very sensitive .

 

If I arrang the plates , just exactly at the tipping point , in theory I should have a few atoms or molecules of Baked China balanced against the whole earth . They are contained in a very small volume , within the plate , about a fulcrum. On the one side is the earth , on the other side , a small number of molecules of China which act from within the body of the plate , to act as the balance . The remainder of the billions of atoms within the plate balance each other out in a conventional ( see saw action ) .

 

The following diagram shows an in principle system . I am not certain I have everything the right way round .

But in principle , all the other plates , including most of the top plate are in equilibrium, yet capable of further rocking . There must be a potential fulcrum where the earth is pulling down on one side the slightest of ways to balance and rock against a handful of china molecules . The rest of the China being in normal equilibrium.

 

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Your intuition is wrong. It's just harmonic motion.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Your intuition is wrong. It's just harmonic motion.

.

 

Yes I agree it is an Harmonic motion, but I am proposing the driver of the oscillator is a very offset balanced system within the stack of China , such that , somewhere in the stack is a potential ' see -saw ' with the earth on one side close upon close to the fulcrum , and a handful of China molecules , out a distance from the fulcrum , ( say a micron on one side , 5-10 cm the other side )

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

There must be somebody , somewhere , who knows what's going on , surely ?

Mike, you would be wise to accept that no one does know "what's going on". Anyone who claims they do (and believes it) is a nutter.

 

The universe does not function in the way that you believe it should. Your intuition in this regard is as relevant as useful as a soiled napkin for navigating across the Pacific. There is no problem in looking at things artistically, but all art is a metaphor, and you are mixing yours.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, you would be wise to accept that no one does know "what's going on". Anyone who claims they do (and believes it) is a nutter.

 

The universe does not function in the way that you believe it should. Your intuition in this regard is as relevant as useful as a soiled napkin for navigating across the Pacific. There is no problem in looking at things artistically, but all art is a metaphor, and you are mixing yours.

I appreciate your concern , however I am deadly serious , that there is an opportunity to see the delicate yet strong determined force of gravity , at work , but in a mobile form , which is useful for careful investigation.

 

I have noticed an event , that caused an observation , it relates quite intimately with Gravity , so it lends itself to a passing viewing , and contemplation. ( It also includes a wave ) .

 

Having removed from the diagram , all the fixtures and fittings surrounding this one saucer ( everything else being in static equilibrium , with gravity ) . I have isolated the basic moving part together with gravity .

 

 

It can be seen from the ( displacement diagram ) that the observation starts with the saucer receiving an initial impulse , during placement upward , of the saucer on the granite worktop. Gravity attracts the upraised half of the saucer towards the centre of the Earth.

The rocking motion , down and up in ever decreasing peaks and troughs.

 

One could suppose the last rise and fall of this decaying oscillation ,involves some very precise values attached to both the force of gravity, displacements , etc and would entice one to careful examination and conclusions ? The most gentle force of gravity in a visually presented , measurable , setting .

 

Mike

 

.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I appreciate your concern , however I am deadly serious , that there is an opportunity to see the delicate yet strong determined force of gravity , at work , but in a mobile form , which is useful for careful investigation.

 

While this is true (and equally true of a pendulum) I see no reason to think this can tell us anything new. The behaviour will be fully determined by Newtonian gravity. Actually, even that is unnecessary, as the force is constant in this simple example, so you don't even need Newton's equation.

 

We find new things about gravity in extreme situations (a planet orbiting close to the Sun, black holes, etc.) Not in everyday situations that are well within the bounds of current theory.

 

But feel free to provide some actual evidence (rather than intuition) that there is something new going on here.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

While this is true (and equally true of a pendulum) I see no reason to think this can tell us anything new. The behaviour will be fully determined by Newtonian gravity. Actually, even that is unnecessary, as the force is constant in this simple example, so you don't even need Newton's equation.

 

We find new things about gravity in extreme situations (a planet orbiting close to the Sun, black holes, etc.) Not in everyday situations that are well within the bounds of current theory.

 

But feel free to provide some actual evidence (rather than intuition) that there is something new going on here.

.

Yes , I do appreciate , what you are saying .

 

These observations in space with planets orbiting close to the sun and black holes are amazing , but out of the reach of my ' budget ' .

Not only that , they are in this area of humongous values of the force of gravity. Unless I am mistaken , the characteristics of gravity and its effects go right down to the very small as well . And it's here that I am proposing , it is possible to look at the effects , right here , on a ' Bench Top ' ( granite work top to be precise ) . Look at it with my eyes . Deal with a value of the resultant ' attractive force ' being very small and manageable . (G m1xm2/r squared ) because although m1 is large , m2 is small . And see an oscillation right here , not sure what relevance that has at the moment , but could have )?

 

The intuition only lead me toward the observation. Now is the interesting bit ! Digging deep, I mean really deep ?

 

It's happening before my very eyes, one meter or less away , I can see something , it's as a result of gravity . It's producing a graph not dissimilar to electronic damped oscillation . The sort of graph that is across the whole field of electrical / electronic engineering design and manufacture . I can remember getting headaches looking at these waveforms in University on 3rd order differential equations or something like that , in feedback control systems .

 

It's there , if we have taken electronics down to , the level where I can communicate to you , in ' Tim Buck too ' via this ' I pad I keep in my pocket , stuffed with goodness knows what of electronics . Surely to goodness , we can look down to the very small effects of the attraction of gravity on a ' portion of a China plate ' ? Or even much smaller?

 

Mike

 

Ps We could go even smaller and investigate whether there is any overlap between GRAVITY and ELECTRO-MAGNETISM by approaching the CASIMIR EFFECT at the atomic level of size . We might then get some insight into QUANTUM GRAVITY ?

 

Ref :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Edited September 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

It's happening before my very eyes, one meter or less away , I can see something , it's as a result of gravity . It's producing a graph not dissimilar to electronic damped oscillation . The sort of graph that is across the whole field of electrical / electronic engineering design and manufacture .

 

But there is nothing new here. And of course it produces a graph similar to damped oscillation, because that is what it is.

 

I'm sure it is fun to watch. But I don't see how it can tell you anything. And certainly not anything new.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But there is nothing new here. And of course it produces a graph similar to damped oscillation, because that is what it is.

 

I'm sure it is fun to watch. But I don't see how it can tell you anything. And certainly not anything new.

.

Well , I am not expecting any body waving at me with a red flag . But as one of those famous scientists once said , not sure who ?

 

" As a researcher or scientist , If you look over a cliff or an horizon , you will inevitably see something new, and if you do not look over the edge , you won't ! "

 

Mike . ( I think I just got a flake of broken China in my eye !

Edited September 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

I am going through , following the observation of the rocking saucer . Thinking about the way gravity is affecting the few or many atoms in the left hand side of the saucer. I stop to think my formula says the gravitational force on the small part of saucer will be very small , because the mass is very small . So if I measured it it would be small.

 

If I was to replace it with me sitting on the granite surface , as a 15/16 stone male , I would exert a force caused by the effect of gravity of some large amount . In fact I would take some shifting . How does the gravity distinguish between me and the few atoms of the saucer , giving them a small force and me a very large force.

 

Of course it does not, as it's the exactly the same force causing an acceleration. Whether I am a few atoms or a hunk of a grown ,overweight male , we will both be accelerated at the same amount . If we suddenly took the granite surface , and everything under it away. This is what Galileo did by dropping a metal canon ball , and a light wooden one from the top of the tower of Pisa. They both were accelerated at exactly the same amount , as did the experiment by the astronaughts on the moon , while dropping a feather and a hammer , both fell by gravity acceleration identically. And I have personally repeated this experiment, in Italy , in Pisa , with a concrete lemon and a real fruit lemon. Unfortunately the police would not let me up the tower , so I did it from the top of a nearby Hotel ! And it worked , the manager witnessed them both hitting the ground at the same time .

 

So the first thing about gravity coming out of this experiment , is , rather than gravity being some massive force , necessarily , it is a fixed value acceleration . The forces come in when you try and get that acceleration . For something like me , you would need quite a large force to get me accelerating at 32 ft/sec , that's why I have all that mass . For a few atoms in the saucer you would require a minuscule force to move them at 32ft/ sec . Because they are ' as light as a kite '

 

So really our model of gravity is more about accelerating things , than anything else . This is probably where the ' curvature of space time comes in ' because to make things whether they be ' me ' or a few atoms , they need to be directed to the centre of the earth , by an inward force ( depending on the individual item ( either a ' me ' or a few ' atoms ' ) . The atoms would be a piece of cake , a minute force necessary ( hence that was kicking about in the rocking saucer) . With ' ( me ' ) '. I would take some shifting to keep me aimed and effectively accelerating , towards the centre of the earth.

 

So it's the curvature of ' space time ' set up by the earth is what is acting to push those ( attract those ) two different items ( me and the few atoms ) towards the centre of the earth.

 

So it does not really matter , who or what , or how heavy or light we are , if space is curved by a large object like the earth , there is effectively that curve there , and it's attracting or pushing us ALL in some form of accelerating mode , towards the centre of the EARTH , ? I THINK.

 

IS THAT SO . Or have I got this bit so far wrong or right ?

 

Mike

 

 

Is

Edited September 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

The piskies take a step back and look at how heavy you/the saucer is before they start pulling. They do this by freezing time so you can't measure it.