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

It doesn't need to act towards the center of the rotation of the earth. It just needs to act away from the center of the sun/galaxy/whatever the galaxy orbits. I realize that there would be no centrifugal force with no centripetal force though. This is why I was looking into coriolis force, because it is another fictitious force where objects are actually moving in a straight line, but they appear to move in ellipses to a rotating reference frame (the rotation of the Earth and revolution of seemingly everything around something else). This would seem to satisfy the requirement that objects in orbit must move as though in a straight line, which I still think can be explained without gravity, but I am having a little bit of trouble with the math using what is available to me online. I'm planning to hire a physics tutor this fall to help bring me up to speed. I'd take college courses, but I'm probably the worst kind of student to be in a classroom environment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, lets set that aside for now and calculate the magnitude, then come back to it:

Earth's orbital radius is 150,000,000 km. The centripetal acceleration is just V^2/r, so our orbital speed is 29,780 m/sec and the acceleration 0.006 m/sec^2.

So compared to g, this value is insignificant regardless of which way it is pointed. But, you care about the direction it is pointed, so let me explain how it works:

When you turn a corner in a car, the force applied by the car pushes you toward the center of the turn, but since you are the reference frame, you feel it as a force pushing you away from the center. It works the same way for the earth in orbit: the centripetal force/acceleration is toward the sun. So if the sun is directly over head and gravity suddenly turns off but somehow the earth remains in its curved path, you feel an acceleration of 0.006 m/sec^2 holding you on earth. If you are on the opposite side of the earth from the sun, you fly off at an acceleration of 0.006 m/sec^2.

Because these motions are cyclical and only aligned at certain times per day/year and at certian locations, it is a bit hard for me to swallow that you don't recognize that the effect you are looking for is also not constant for a given location on earth and time of day/year. Your quip about "correctly predicting" a gravitational anomaly (who's magnitude you don't know and didn't calculate) at a location that is a specific when it must be a ring is an obvious inconsistency in your logic. I can't believe you are so dense that you can't see it.

And by the way, though you have improved you are still behaving in a way that implies a refusal to learn, serious enough that it implies trolling. You are answering some questions, but ignoring questions who's answers reveal obvious flaws in your logic. And then there is the goalpost shifting:

In less than an hour, you could do all of the calculations you have implied you need* and find that all of them show insignificant impacts on gravity based on their magnitude. Or you could look at the handful you've started with and recognize that they all work the same way. In particular, they are all cyclical. This duck-and-move approach can't carry you forever because:
1. You said all of these motions matter, but we're calculating one-by-one that they don't.
2. Even if one-by-one you discard one and move on to the next, you will quickly run out of motions to goalpost-shift to.

*I'm not sure if you yet believe that the Coriolis force/acceleration is tangential to the surface, but if we assume you do, you need to calculate the centripetal accelerations of the following motions:
1. Earth's rotation.
2. Earth's orbit about the sun.
3. The sun's orbit about the galaxy center.
4. The Galaxy's orbit about the common COG of our galaxy cluster - if it is identified/exists.

That's it. That's all of the circular motions that we have and we've already calculated the magnitude of the first two (by the way,have you compared the numbers to see which is bigger?). So do just a little bit of work and end this!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It probably is a ring, but not every part of the Earth on that ring is glacier. The reason that scientists have given for the "missing" gravity in the Hudson bay area is that the ground is rising about 18mm/yr and that it is less dense there.

The reason I am not giving up yet is because I have yet to find anything that can show me the exact way the Earth moves relative to a "fixed" position in the universe. That fixed position could be a moment frozen in time or some kind of coordinate system that does not move. The angle the Earth rotates relative to the directions it moves around the Sun and the Galaxy are also suspect.

You can't tell me that we can't shoot a rocket "straight" out from the Earth towards where the Earth will be in the time that it takes for the rocket to cross its path. Since the Earth is rotating against its other vectors of motion half of the time, I also don't see how throwing something, say about 100 meters "up", can make it move completely out of the way of the Earth when the Earth does not move in a straight line relative to anything on its surface. This has to happen on at least parts of the Earth, which would throw off any measurements of gravity from mass attraction. This is what I want to know. Where exactly will something thrown from the surface of an Earth without gravity go?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) You are referring to the "ether" - a fixed reference frame that everything else is measured against. This has been proven not to exist literally hundreds of times through various experiments. Note that the term "ether" refers both to an imaginary stationary substance and the fixed reference frame it provides.

2) In any case it doesn't matter. Choose any frame of reference; your results must be the same.

The dominant "angle the Earth rotates" comes from the Earth's own rotation - and that tends to throw things off the Earth. Every other rotation relative to anything else will tend to throw things off one side of the Earth while keeping them on the other; their NET effect will be zero if averaged over the entire surface. (And no, you can't choose to ignore all the forces pushing you away and only heed the forces that conform to your theory.)

Sure we could. It would be a waste of propellant but we could do it. Launch and burn westward until the velocity of the planet is cancelled out then go straight up. (Turns out it's a lot more economical to do the exact opposite since then we get a boost from the rotation of the Earth.)

It will fly away, maintaining the velocity it had from the surface of the Earth. From your perspective it would go straight up then gradually appear to curve west. (Of course what is actually happening is you are continuing east on the planet, so as your course is reversed by the motion of the planet it only LOOKS like it's bending west. In actuality it goes in a straight line.)

 

There is no such thing.

 

I'm not talking about the "ether". I am aware of the theories surrounding it. I'm just taking about how everything we know of movies relative to 1 point. I want that 1 point to be somewhere that we can at least see the galaxy moving. I don't know how else to explain it and I don't know why you've come up with something like the aether from what I am trying to tell you. This is the most frustrating part of discussing physics. I can't seem to share my ideas well enough to not be misunderstood.

If something will fly off the Earth, never to collide with it again, I want to see proof that it will happen as you say. I want to see the exact trajectory of that object relative to the Earth.

If you throw something up in the air, it doesn't stop moving tangent to the surface at 0.465 km/s. It also doesn't stop moving at the same speed in any of the other directions that you didn't accelerate it in.

One of you told me before to spin a basketball covered in water droplets and see if they don't go flying off. Well, they wouldn't go flying off if you spun it at the same RPM that the Earth Spins.

It doesn't matter where you stand on the Earth, you are always going to be between its surface and at least one of the directions it is moving in, even if you are on the South pole. The Earth is constantly moving you towards and away from these different directions in which it moves. In order to throw you off its surface, it would have to push you away in the opposite of every direction it is moving. Because of the angle and magnitude it rotates relative to its other movements and magnitudes, it can't do that.

Can you, with all honesty, tell me that you have examined the movement of the Earth and objects on its surface while contemplating and calculating where exactly an object might go if thrown straight "up" without gravity? If so, can you share your notes with me?

 

I realize that, due to relativity, there is no such thing. We can maybe use the CMB for reference though.

 

Yes, you were:

"That fixed position could be a moment frozen in time or some kind of coordinate system that does not move." A "fixed coordinate system that does not move" is what people referred to as the ether, the stationary reference frame everything else is measured against. Google the Michelson-Morley experiment; that's a good example of a proof _against_ a fixed coordinate system.

You can choose any frame you like. Choose the center of the galaxy; the galaxy will then rotate around you. And the physics of what will happen on Earth won't change no matter what frame you choose.

Draw a circle and then draw a straight line off it, tangential to the surface. That's your trajectory. (In the absence of gravity, of course, which is what you are proposing.)

You could animate it and have the earth continue turning beneath the object. Same basic idea.

Right. It just goes in a straight line - away.

Right, that's due to surface tension. Water sticks to things. Repeat it with loose dry sand in zero G and all that sand will depart instantly.

Right, and that doesn't matter. If I stand in front of you on an airplane going 500 miles per hour, I am in the direction you are moving in. I will not be forced into you, nor you forced into me. Indeed we will feel no unusual forces at all.

Again, absolute motion doesn't matter. And in any case you cannot choose a reference frame where the Earth is always moving towards you. From a given frame, half the time it will be moving towards you, half the time it will be moving away. (Neglecting rotation, which means it's ALWAYS moving away from you.)

No. All it has to do is move away from you as you continue in a straight line. Which is what a rotating body does.

Sure, they are very simple.

Here's the force acting on the released object: 0
Here's the force acting on you, who are presumably attached to the Earth: F=mrw^2, where w is the angular velocity of the Earth wherever you are, r is the radius from the axis of rotation, and m is your mass.

Object goes in a straight line, you (and the Earth) move away from it.

 

The object moves in a straight line Away from the point you threw it from, which is about 30km away relative to the Sun for every second from the moment you let go of it. Before being released from the Earth, the object was moving in at least 3 known circular motions, which is its velocity tangent to? Should be all of them, right? How is it going to move tangent to the surface and not collide with it again EVERYWHERE and ANY TIME on the Earth? Like I said, it doesn't matter where you are standing, on the surface, the Earth's surface is moving both towards you and away from you in at least 2 directions at a time.


Let me raise this question again. If there was no centripetal force (gravity) keeping you on the surface of the Earth as is constantly moving your body both in and out of its way, how does your inertia not cause a normal force between your body and the surface? You can't just say it's because of circular motion, because you wouldn't be moving in a circle if it wasn't pushing you. I've asked this question a few times and I have not gotten a satisfying answer yet. I don't know if I am describing what I mean well enough.

 

Then you must acknowledge that your claim to have predicted a gravitational anomaly at the Hudson bay is straightforwardly wrong. You must. Otherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest.

It is frustrating for us too. The problem is that you refuse to listen to people who are trying to teach you. You don't know that what you are referring to is the ether because you don't know what the ether is, so you should listen when people explain it to you.

It is also so frustrating because it has been explained multiple times: there is no such point because all motion is relative. Or from the other direction: there are an infinte number of points we could choose, differing only in the calculation complexity.

You think that such a point exists and are trying to invent or incorporate more and more complex motions, hoping that eventually one of them will start to make the model resemble your desired way the universe should look. The problem is that the point you are looking for doesn't exist so we can't define it for you and you will only keep making the definition more and more complicated in search of it.

It will become a never-ending cycle of us showing you mathematically that one motion has a negligible impact, you inventing/incorporating another one, then us showing that that one has a negligible impact. Lather/rinse/repeat.

I made a list of several historical factual realities a few pages ago that I requested you acknowledge you accept. You ignored it as you do not like to accept uncomfortable realities. So I'll just re-post an abbriged version (for you to ignore again):

1. You are aware that the United States has sent space probes to a number of planets and even a few out of the solar sytem, right?
2. You are aware that such probes generally don't fire their rockets for months, years or decades at a time, right? Pioneer 10, for example, was launched forty years ago, made 3 course corrections in the first year, and not another one since.

This is clear evidence that our existing understanding of the laws of gravity and motion is correct.

 

There are an infinite number of points on the surfac of the earth, facing an infinite number of different directions. Are you saying it is your intent to try to calculate this for an infinite number of separate cases?

Here's the easy way out: You have yet to find one successful one, so by extrapolation we can conclude that they will all be wrong. If you need to invent dozens or hundreds to try before you are convinced, I'm afraid you'll be on your own!

This is, of course, ignoring the much easier to swallow reality that these motions cause contradictory effects on different points on earth. When you look at the centripetal motion from earth's orbit around the sun and see that:
1. It is way too small to explain Earth's gravity.
2. On one side of the earth it helps and on the other side it hurts.
....you should conclude that this has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. And you should recognize that any other circular motion you can think of will suffer from the same flaw.

 

It is rather frustrating jiveabillion because your conjecture is so obviously wrong.

It was stated [I forget by who] that your idea can't possibly be right because if 2 people on the equater on opposite sides of the earth and 2 people on the poles were to all jump at the same time, none of them will fly off into space.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In other words the earth does not 'hit' them as you say. Your answer to that is that since we are orbiting the galaxy and moving towards andromeda and whatever that the earth is moving in a very complicated way. The excruciatingly obvious point is this 'complicated' motion CANNOT mean it is moving in all directions at the same time. If you cannot admitt that then you may be beyond hope. I know that you have thought about this alot and you have invested a large amount of time into this but fer christ sake sometime you just have to cut your losses and admit when you are wrong!

 

I am not being dishonest. Here is how it went:
1. I calculated the resultant vector of the Earth's movement around the Galaxy
2. I noticed that the vector would intersect the surface from the center of the Earth at about 60 degrees latitude.
3. Since the momentum of the Earth moving in that direction would be added to anything thrown from that direction, I assumed that there would be less gravity there.
4. I googled for gravitational anomalies and found the one in the Hudson Bay.
5. I double checked to see if it was at around 60% latitude, and it was.

Is that not a prediction?

I am not refusing to listen. I read what you are saying and you are not completely answering my questions or you are not answering them in a way that convinces me that you understood my question. I understand that All motion is relative, but you keep saying that if something is released from the Earth, it will move in a straight line. but the EARTH DOES NOT MOVE IN A STRAIGHT LINE. How can it move completely away from you if it doesn't move in a straight line? You, or someone else on here, stated asked me how the Earth can be moving towards every point on its surface at the same time. Well how can it be moving away from every point on its surface at the same time?

Maybe you can do this for me and it will help me understand you without doubts. Illustrate something dropped, or "let go", by a man standing on a cliff 100 meters above the surface on the Equator at the crack of dawn December 21st 2014 on an Earth with no gravity as well as its position relative to the point directly beneath it after each half second over 4.5 seconds. You act as though you know exactly where it will go, please show me.

I didn't ignore this the first time. I just found it to be irrelevant.

I didn't say we didn't know how to work within the confines of these laws. We still don't, however, understand what the cause of gravity really is.

 

Come on folks - his name is Jive-A-Billion... he is obviously a troll. That or a complete dumbass.

Either way, you're wasting your time.

 

Both. I gave up trying to engage him in anything remotely intelligent. A little kid could process information better than JAB.

 

Choose a reference frame. At the moment of release it has ONE velocity vector. Not three, not ten. ONE. It continues in that direction.

Because it has a velocity component away from the planet. Unless you provide thrust you will not change that.

No, any object can only have one velocity vector.

It does! It is negative; it causes you to fly off the surface unless constrained.

I think you have gotten a dozen answers, but have not liked them. I suggest that asking another dozen times will not cause the answer to change. (If, however, it helps you understand the process a bit better, that's a good thing.)

 

What you are describing there sounds kinda like how a "ringworld" works. Have a look and see what you think and how it applies to/differs from your idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld

 

No that is nothing.

What you found is that the plane of the solar system is oriented at about 63 degrees to the galactic plane.

You then said there is a low gravity point near hudson bay. You conveniently ignored the high gravity point near iceland also at 60 degrees latitude which goes against your idea. Not to mention the lowest gravity point is on the equater which completely destroys your conjecture!

You have nothing. Every part of your conjecture is counter intuitive and goes against what is observed. It is complete hog wash - sorry but that is just the way it is and you are simply deluding yourself if you believe other wise.

Here is the gravity map disproving your conjectures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As serious as you are about this, what you're saying above doesn't make sense. So please don't delude yourself.

 

Deluding himself is what the last 340 posts have been about.