Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is..

So I actually missed a few things, so I guess I need to go back and hit them. In particular, I didn't see this reply to my "reality questions":

Those thoughts contradict each other. You're trying to use Newton's laws of motion and discard Newton's law of gravity while claiming you still believe Newton's law of gravity works. That's just not possible: either you are trying to change the calculations or you think you can discard part of the calculations and the rest of the calculations change themselves to compensate! That's just bizarre.

Or to put a finer point on it: in order to discard Newton's law of gravity and get the same results from calculations, you also must trash his laws of motion.

Watching idea after idea of yours fail really should have more impact for you.

In order to push us down toward the center of the earth, it needs to act toward the center of the earth. The fact that the vectors of these centripetal accelerations rarely point toward the center of the earth is an obvious and critical flaw in your reasoning.

[this has been explained already]
1. Define the scenario precisely. Where is the object and what are the orientations of the earth in its rotation and orbit?
2. Calculate the individual components of its motion.
3. Add them together.

We've already done several of them (the largest). Again, it is so obvious that it strains credulity that you can't see it. Try this: ride in a car with a friend, have him turn left and jump out of the right side of the car. Do you crash back into the car or do you roll away from it? Or do the same on a merry-go-round. You can easily prove that the earth's rotation pushes you away from it, not toward it. These issues are just too simple for you to be having too much trouble with by accident. You must be purposely trying not to learn or already know you are wrong and are just messing with us.

An object thrown from earth might collide with earth again at some time. But not all the time and not with anywhere close to the trajectory predicted by gravity. Again, you can calculate these easily enough (and again, we've already calculated some of them).

1. Even if you did, the vector isn't constant, since the motions are all circular/cyclical.
2. Since the motions are circular/cyclical, they wouldn't all the time.
3. That doesn't make any sense.
4. Ok....
5. Ok....but you say you knew the earth rotates and that it therefore should be a ring. And you know the earth revolves around the sun, so it wouldn't stay at 60 degrees latitude. Sounds like you are just doing some very convenient discarding of vast discrepancies.

6. It isn't a prediction about what you say it is a prediction about and it is so incoherent as to not be all that useful. It doesn't predict the magnitude of gravitational anomaly and the location of the anomaly "prediction" very clearly does not match what is seen on Earth, nor is it useful for anything but a single point in time and space. I call it an incoherent mess of nonsensical thoughts, but if you want to call it a prediction fine: then it predicts an incoherent mess of results that contradict reality. You can pick which you prefer, but in either case, it doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Either way, it is an incoherent mess of wrongness that you bizarrely cling to, not a scientific theory.

No, you don't. At least not completely. You don't understand that the fact that all motion is relative means that there is no preferred reference frame for the motion. There is no absolute/resultant total motion.

In what reference frame? Newton's first law says that an object not acted on by an outside force and in a non-rotating frame moves in a straight line. I thought you said you didn't want to contradict Newton's laws?

In a rotating reference it appears to move in an arc, but that arc never arcs back toward the planet, it is a spiral away from the planet. You can easily separate these two motions if you want to. (clearly, you do not).

The object moves up due to Earth's rotation and West due to its revolution around the sun. I've described these motions to you already. The coriolis effect bends both slightly. These have been described to you already, separately. They don't change when combined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll grant you this - AFAIK we don't know what the cause of gravity is... but we do understand how it behaves. And it seriously appears to have something to do with mass and nothing to do with the movement of the Earth in relation to whatever point you select.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Imagine if we all attended some sort of conference. A small one. When jiveabillion brings up his idea, I'm pretty sure it'll be resolved in no time.

But on an internet forum, it can stretch up to 17 pages; 17 pages of misunderstandings, misconceptions and self-delusions. It's the anonymity that allows them to behave like stubborn fools and delusional egomaniacs. Such a sad state of affairs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As others have said, this is pretty tough to accept. The concepts being discussed are pretty simple, the results pretty clear. The level of self-delusion required to keep going must therefore be pretty substantial.

Or we could be dealing with a troll.

Tough to know for sure.

 

But he's not anonymous, he's told us that he's a programmer called Nathan Eary, at the very beginning of the thread. He's convinced he's right and nothing can shake his convictions.

 

That video makes my skin crawl. I feel an odd mixture of sympathy, sadness, embarrassment and contempt when watching it. I get that feeling when I see an awkward video, like when the Fox News reporter interviewed the Muslim author of a Jesus biography. I don't like awkward situations/humor.

By the way, starting at 8:30 are a couple of examples that show projectile motion that ignore the Coriolis force.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Tach, I couldn't sit through more than a couple of minutes. I slewed to a few random spots and saw the same kind of junk he's peddling here and bailed out.

jiveabillion, at this point there is only one thing you need to know: You are egregiously wrong.

 

I guess he's like Farsight, totally delusional about his own work and ignoring all other things.

 

There are many physical things which can cause things to fall like antimatter or nuclear fusion for example. I don't think that spacetime is a physical thing. It was Einstein's imagination that curved space-time causes gravity.

 

Well, I think it is safe to say that at least your conjecture is no worse than jiveabillion's. Maybe Pincho could pop in on the thread and talk about bubbles n' stuff while we are at it...

 

Yikes! If anything is worse than getting jived, it's getting Pinchoed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, Nathan managed to reaffirm his crank beliefs for hundreds of posts now. I feel bad for his employees (he claims to have quite a few, though I think he's lying, he's a one man "company").

 

This thing can easily erupt into a huge argument so lemme just put in the first word.


The difference between jiveabillion's theory and Einstein's theory of spacetime curvature is that jiveabillion attempts to use classical kinematics to explain gravity as a result of the Earth's motion, instead of developing something new.

But kinematics can't explain gravity, and jiveabillion makes no sense.

 

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But the Earth doesn't stop moving when you let go of the object. Where does the Earth go relative to the Object. This is what I really want to know. It seems to me that it would move right back into the object because it isn't following the object in a straight line and the object isn't following the Earth in a straight line, but the object's velocity vector is still across the surface of the Earth. Why would the Earth not move back into it?

 

I've said that I am completely open to the idea of being wrong. I've only been learning about physics since the end of June. I've been persistent with this because I have not gotten satisfactory answers and I don't give up easily. I don't understand why you guys wouldn't think that it would be fun to try to determine where exactly a projectile would go if there were no gravity. Everything I've seen just deals with the idea as though the Earth is standing completely still in the universe, when it isn't. I've spent a lot of time searching for answers on my own, but I can't find them. That's why I came to this forum. I wanted to ask my questions directly with the hopes that someone would answer them all. That's when I discovered that I am unable to ask my questions in a way that can be understood by physicists, so I made a video to illustrate what I mean. Few of you watched it. The ones that did only criticized it and did not point out exactly what is wrong about it.

I've tried studying solar system simulations, drawing diagrams, working with Wolfram Alpha widgets, and googling everything I can think of. I can't find the right tools to show me the trajectory of an object thrown from or dropped on the surface of the Earth if there were no gravity.


I can tell you this, none of you have made this a fun experience for me.

 

Here is an illustration to help me get my idea across and hopefully help you answer my questions.

View attachment 6418

The drawing is a view from "above" the solar system.


Remember, No gravity.

Here are some questions:

1. At a time that my body is at point A. does it not have momentum in the opposite direction of the arrow? Do I not have any momentum in the direction away from the arrow of point D?

2. If the Earth stopped moving, where would my body go from that point?

3. While the Earth pushes me around to point B, will my momentum that is away from point D not keep me pressed up against its surface?

4. If while pushing me around to point B a trap door opened beneath me would the Earth not continue going while I "fall" down the hole until I reach more surface to begin pushing me again?

5. After reaching point B, does my body not have momentum in the direction away from the B arrow (towards the Sun) and still some momentum away from the A arrow?

6. Does the same thing not happen while pushing me around to the other arrows?

 

I don't have employees. I have a team. I've contracted myself out through my own company to work for another company with their developers. Don't feel bad for them. They value me and the help I give them.

 

Yes, due to the direction the earth and you are moving.

Yes if we consider that you are at point A and the earth is rotating clockwise.

From point A assuming a clock wise rotation you would fly off the earth in the direction between arrows A and B.

Nope you are going the same speed as the earth so it will not be causign a force on you anywhere.

Nope not without gravity you would float.

Nope none of your momentum will be towards the sun at that point, it will all be in the direction opposite arrow A.

This is moot since 5. is incorrect.

 

It is rotating anti-clockwise. Where did my momentum from being pushed from C to D go?

Why are you assuming clockwise rotation?

I'm moving the same speed as what part of the Earth? The center is not moving the same speed as the point on the surface where I am standing and I was on the other side of the Earth only12 hours ago.

How would I float away? The Earth is still moving towards me, but it is no longer able to push against me. Don't you see why this is confusing to me?

I don't see how that can be true. Relative to the center of the Earth, the surface has not moved me all the way away from point A yet. Why would I not still have momentum to "stay put" if the Earth stopped rotating or press against the Earth as it continues to rotate me around? Where did that momentum go?


Can you explain these things further for me?