Disprove Gravity

[Yazata]

I don't think that Guerami is a flat-Earth believer. He seems to have a peculiar and poorly explained theoretical intuition that he feels makes belief in the reality of gravity as a fundamental force of nature unnecessary. He writes:

"The rules of the universe are simple. An atoms position in a system is based upon its density in relation to the surrounding densities and the changes in magnetism, electricity and temperature. Density is the most important function in determining the position of an object. Density is the vibration intensity within a volume in relation to the density of the surrounding medium."

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/1183

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/1185

 

[Write4U]

IMO, the example of a helium balloon proves gravity exists.
A helium balloon can only rise to a certain altitude where the air becomes so thin that an equilibrium between buoyancy and gravity is reached. It will float at that altitude, but will not (cannot) escape the earths atmosphere.

The proof lies in taking a helium balloon above the earth's atmosphere and release it. It will fall back to earth due to gravity, until it reaches the point of equilibrium in the atmosphere again and will float there. If it loses helium and it's buoyancy diminishes it will begin to slowly fall (due to gravity) and continue to fall until all helium gone and the balloon no longer has any buoyancy and will make land-fall, due to gravity.

Is that about right?

 

[Daecon]

Yes. Air is heavier than Helium, so the air "sinks" in relation to a Helium balloon.

 

[river]

IMO, the example of a helium balloon proves gravity exists.
A helium balloon can only rise to a certain altitude where the air becomes so thin that an equilibrium between buoyancy and gravity is reached. It will float at that altitude, but will not (cannot) escape the earths atmosphere.

The proof lies in taking a helium balloon above the earth's atmosphere and release it. It will fall back to earth due to gravity, until it reaches the point of equilibrium in the atmosphere again and will float there. If it loses helium and it's buoyancy diminishes it will begin to slowly fall (due to gravity) and continue to fall until all helium gone and the balloon no longer has any buoyancy and will make land-fall, due to gravity.

Is that about right?

The balloon will fall back to Earth based on Earths rotation .

I wonder what is the Earths rotation ratio , to mass ?

Is gravity ordered space ?

 

[river]

What I would like to find is the ratio between Earths mass, volume and rotation .

The volume of Earth is ; 260 billion cubic miles

Mass of Earth is ; 5.9722x10^24 kg

Rotation of the Earth is ; 1000mph .

What equations would you use to figure this out ?

 

[Write4U]

The balloon will fall back to Earth based on Earths rotation .

That is a misquote. I said the Earth's gravitation.

I wonder what is the Earths rotation ratio , to mass ?

I have no idea.

Is gravity ordered space ?

I would tend to view it as disordered (warped) space, due to the presence of a massive object.

 

[river]

That is a misquote. I said the Earth's gravitation.
I have no idea.
I would tend to view it as disordered (warped) space, due to the presence of a massive object.

Does not a " warp space " imply order ?

 

[James R]

river:

The balloon will fall back to Earth based on Earths rotation .

What do you mean?

Do you think that gravity is caused by rotation? (Hint: it isn't.)

Is gravity ordered space ?

What do you mean by "ordered space"?

What I would like to find is the ratio between Earths mass, volume and rotation .

The volume of Earth is ; 260 billion cubic miles

Mass of Earth is ; 5.9722x10^24 kg

Rotation of the Earth is ; 1000mph .

What equations would you use to figure this out ?

A ratio is formed by dividing two quantities.

For example, the ratio between the Earth's volume and its "rotation" would be 260 billion cubic miles per 1000 mph.

You, could, of course, convert to different units, or simplify. For example:

$$\frac{260,000,000,000~\text{miles}^3}{1000~mph} = 260,000,000~\text{(miles)}^2\text{hours}$$

So, the ratio you want there is 260 million square-mile hours.[/tex]

 

[DaveC426913]

The balloon will fall back to Earth based on Earths rotation .

The balloon will fall back to Earth because of the Earth's gravity.

Do you think gravity doesn't work at the North Pole?

Look:
Io (9x10^22) is 20% more massive than the Moon (5x10^22).
Its rotation (1.8 days) is fifteen times faster than the Moon's (27 days).
Callisto's surface g is (1.8m/s^2) - that's 12% more than the Moon (1.6m/s^2).

I wonder what is the Earths rotation ratio , to mass ?

Irrelevant. Rotation is unrelated to gravity.

 

[Write4U]

Does not a " warp space " imply order ?

Does a pothole in a flat road imply "order"?

But more to the point; if one drives on a smooth but hilly road, why does it require additional power to go uphill and less power or even controlled braking, when going downhill?

Check out Galileo's law of falling bodies, later refined by Newton as being the result of gravitational attraction.

The speed of an object comes into play when it is in orbit inside the gravitational field (warped space) of a massive object. But this has nothing to do with buoyancy, but with centrifugal force.

In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame of reference.
The concept of the centrifugal force can be applied in rotating devices, such as centrifuges, centrifugal pumps, centrifugal governors, and centrifugal clutches, and in centrifugal railways, planetary orbits and banked curves, when they are analyzed in a rotating coordinate system.

In the case of planetary orbits, the axis of rotation of the orbiting planet lies at the center of the gravitational field created by the massive object.

 

[Xmo1]

wikipedia
P1. Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.
P2. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics.
I think: the above paragraphs suggest that it matters what you want to do. Newton's and Einstein's equations are available, so if you want to plot an orbit then Newton's equations would be the easiest to use. If you want to calculate the relative speed of light near a star you would probably be talking about Einstein's equations. The law of gravity says that two objects are attracted to each other. The theories of gravity say why. Physical laws are pretty much indisputable. So which theory of gravity would you want to disprove?

Probably 4 hours with a university physics professor would ....
arg! on people who twist reasonable things for the sake of making a buck, or even less. It's difficult enough teaching people right reason, lawful authority, and critical thinking. Then you get (epithet) who write down every thought they have on a trip through the desert heat, and have enough resources to publish the nonsense to be read by young minds who are more than happy to use it in their anxious diatribes. Just arg! on them.

 

[Write4U]

The law of gravity says that two objects are attracted to each other. The theories of gravity say why. Physical laws are pretty much indisputable. So which theory of gravity would you want to disprove?

I don't, you are not reading my post in it's full scope. In short, the center of gravity lies in the center of the massive object and therefore also at the center of the axis of rotation of the planets in centrifugal orbit.
Try harder next time.

 

[Xmo1]

I don't, you are not reading my post in it's full scope. In short, the center of gravity lies in the center of the massive object and therefore also at the center of the axis of rotation of the planets in centrifugal orbit.
Try harder next time.

That is Newtonian theory, and was disproved by Einstein. Mass curves spacetime. That's how it works. Gravity is not at the center of anything. It's the result of something (mass). Gravity waves have amplitude and frequency, and are ripples in spacetime. The Earth creates gravity waves as it bobs up and down in it's orbit around the sun. The solar system creates gravity waves as it bobs up and down in its orbit around the galaxy. Gravity causes spacetime to curve, and the motion of massive objects cause ripples in spacetime. If you jump into the air and fall to the ground you create gravity waves. If you do it 3 times a second the frequency of the gravity waves you create are 3 times per second. Rotating while you are jumping is not going to have much of an affect compared to the jumping. It will have some, but not much.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is Newtonian theory, and was disproved by Einstein. Mass curves spacetime. That's how it works. Gravity is not at the center of anything. It's the result of something (mass).

Odd how you would call out W4U for using Newtonian concepts when you were just quoted using one yourself:

The law of gravity says that two objects are attracted to each other.

In Einsteinian gravity, objects are not "attracted to each other".

 

[Q-reeus]

...In Einsteinian gravity, objects are not "attracted to each other".

Of course they are. In GR mutual attraction is attributed to convergent geodesics rather than a force, but it's still attraction.

 

[Xmo1]

Odd how you would call out W4U for using Newtonian concepts when you were just quoted using one yourself:

In Einsteinian gravity, objects are not "attracted to each other".

True. My problem. I was reading the differences between the law of gravity, and theories of gravity. I shouldn't have used it here. I pretty much grew up learning the Newtonian concepts, so it was a slip back in time .

 

[Xmo1]

Of course they are. In GR mutual attraction is attributed to convergent geodesics rather than a force, but it's still attraction.

ooo convergent geodesics is so sexy, and pairing it with attraction - !nerdgasm!

 

[Write4U]

Of course they are. In GR mutual attraction is attributed to convergent geodesics rather than a force, but it's still attraction.

And suggests also that lexical descriptions are often subject to multiple interpretations, but also that symbolic representations of the mathematical values and equations of such natural phenomena are the precise interpretation of forces and functions, and are mathematically falsifiable.

 

[Write4U]

ooo convergent geodesics is so sexy, and pairing it with attraction - !nerdgasm!

does an object with negative charge attract an object with positive charge? How about magnetism? It can both attract and repulse.

 

[Q-reeus]

ooo convergent geodesics is so sexy, and pairing it with attraction - !nerdgasm!

Acting as proxy or something? 'Nerdgasm' - how cute. Make sure to copy write it. Maybe take up your skepticism of standard GR geometric outlook, with the author of this Wki piece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity#Probing_the_gravitational_field
Or any standard textbook on GR for that matter.