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

First of all, that would be proper acceleration.

The Earth isn't slinging you around like that. It changes the direction of your momentum as it rotates you around without accelerating you. You have to look at the directions and speeds the earth is moving relative to the direction it rotates. A body on its surface has the momentum to move at the same speed as the center of the earth. If you follow a body on the equator and keep close attention to the path in which it moves relative to the center of the Earth, you can see that it proportionately speeds the body up in one direction, while it slows it down in another. You can watch how it does this on any point on the surface of the Earth. The body's own inertia creates the normal force as it resists this change in direction. If you calculate and plot the resultant of force vectors on a body on opposite sides of the Earth, you will see how the resultants intersect. If you do this all along the equator, it creates a cone shape that points towards the path that the solar system is moving around the galaxy. If the Earth wasn't in the body's way, it would move towards the center of where the Earth was.

This is simply incorrect. Your ideas about how forces work is, to put it plainly, laughable.

You have not addressed any points, such as gravitational time dilation, or the inverse square law, or any other observed phenomena.

There's really no reason to challenge you to support your crank idea, because you can't.
 
If you seriously believe any of this you can very easily test it by comparing the weight of Neil Armstrong on the Moon vs. on Earth, and comparing their rates of rotation. What does that tell you?

It isn't just the rotation of a moon or planet that matters. There are many factors you must take into account. Circumference, orbit speed, rotation speed, orbit circumference, inclination, axial tilt. The amount mass is important when calculating how much surface gravity it has.

The moon doesn't rotate very quickly, but it does revolve around the Earth much more quickly than the Earth revolves around the sun. The inclination of its orbit enables gravity to be on its poles.

Generally speaking, the faster a planet rotates and the larger its radius, the more gravity it will have and therefore the more massive it can become.

That being said. I admit that I don't know how to do the calculations.
 
The Earth isn't slinging you around like that. It changes the direction of your momentum as it rotates you around without accelerating you.

This is why no one is taking you seriously. AlexG pointed out a specific, deal-breaking problem with your theory: standing on the right part of the equator at the right time of day would cause a person to fall off the Earth. Your response, in so many words, is just that all the other complicating factors balance each other out in such a way that everything turns out ok. The problem is, if you fall back on hand-wavey fudge factors like that, it's possible to justify pretty much any theory. If you want to explore a theory in any but the simplest of cases, you have to do a calculation or two to see what really happens. You even seem to realize this later in your post:

If you calculate and plot the resultant of force vectors on a body on opposite sides of the Earth, you will see how the resultants intersect. If you do this all along the equator, it creates a cone shape that points towards the path that the solar system is moving around the galaxy.

That would be exactly the right way to test your theory. But if you don't know any math, you can't perform the calculation you suggest. If I knew exactly what force vectors you were trying to add, I'm sure I could quickly show you that they don't add up in the right way. As it is, I can't tell what forces you think are present (in particular, "the body's own inertia creates the normal force" has no physical meaning that I can see), but the central point remains: physics can't be done without math. Full stop. Sorry.
 
This is simply incorrect. Your ideas about how forces work is, to put it plainly, laughable.

You have not addressed any points, such as gravitational time dilation, or the inverse square law, or any other observed phenomena.

There's really no reason to challenge you to support your crank idea, because you can't.

If that simply isn't correct, then explain to me how it would work then and why. I really think that you aren't thinking it through properly. If the Earth were to sling me off at the equator at 0.465km/s, 1 of 2 things would happen. The momentum that I have travelling around the galaxy would keep me from flying off in that direction and the speed of the earth moving in the other direction would make the earth catch up with me, OR The momentum I have travelling in the direction of the earth around the sun will keep me from flying off in that direction and the speed of the earth traveling in the direction around the galaxy would make the earth catch up to me. If the Earth were to sling me off and then STOP MOVING ENTIRELY, then yes, I would fly off into space.


Gravitational time dilation is due to differences in relative velocity. You have to look at it from the satellite to the center of the earth then to the object on its surface. Relative to the satellite, the center of the earth is not moving, but the surface of the earth is.

As far as the inverse square law goes, remember that cone shape the resultant vectors make? What shape does an inverse square make as it grows outward from 1 point? It's pretty close to the same thing as the curvature of space-time, but it's explained with plain Newtonian mechanics. You need to think about what has to happen for something to even be, say 100km, from the surface of the Earth and not be moving away from its center. It either has to come from somewhere outside of the Earth's orbit and be moving at very very close to the speeds the earth is moving and then somehow magically slow down or have its path intersect the path of the Earth just in time for the Earth to get behind it, or it has to have come from the Earth, in which case it would still be travelling on roughly the same trajectory of the Earth because it didn't speed away from it fast enough to actually be moving away from it (it would still be moving in the same direction as the earth, but at a slower speed). Since the Earth doesn't move in a straight line, that object is likely to catch up with the Earth, especially if it doesn't have any way to thrust away from it.
 
This is why no one is taking you seriously. AlexG pointed out a specific, deal-breaking problem with your theory: standing on the right part of the equator at the right time of day would cause a person to fall off the Earth.

No you wouldn't. At no point on the Earth can you negate all the momentum you have at once by jumping in any direction. The closest option you have is near the Hudson Bay area, but even if you jumped straight away from the Earth towards it's path around the galaxy, you aren't jumping against the speed of the earth rotating or revolving and the earth would collide with you again.
 
If the Earth were to sling me off at the equator at 0.465km/s, 1 of 2 things would happen. The momentum that I have travelling around the galaxy would keep me from flying off in that direction and the speed of the earth moving in the other direction would make the earth catch up with me, OR The momentum I have travelling in the direction of the earth around the sun will keep me from flying off in that direction and the speed of the earth traveling in the direction around the galaxy would make the earth catch up to me. If the Earth were to sling me off and then STOP MOVING ENTIRELY, then yes, I would fly off into space.
Here you've confused rotational velocity with orbital velocity, and done a lot of hand waving. Why do you think that the momentum you have from galactic orbiting wouldn't add to the momentum flinging you off the earth. The ROTATIONAL momentum would fling you off at a tangent, and neither the earth's orbital direction around the sun or the galaxy would offset that. This is just VERY BASIC physics.

This nonsense gets deeper the more you post.
 
Here you've confused rotational velocity with orbital velocity, and done a lot of hand waving. Why do you think that the momentum you have from galactic orbiting wouldn't add to the momentum flinging you off the earth. The ROTATIONAL momentum would fling you off at a tangent, and neither the earth's orbital direction around the sun or the galaxy would offset that. This is just VERY BASIC physics.

This nonsense gets deeper the more you post.
Because the momentum you have from galactic orbiting is never in the same direction as the earth's rotation. You have to also remember that the Earth doesn't stop moving the moment you lose contact with it.
 
It isn't just the rotation of a moon or planet that matters. There are many factors you must take into account. Circumference, orbit speed, rotation speed, orbit circumference, inclination, axial tilt. The amount mass is important when calculating how much surface gravity it has.

For crying out loud this is just stupid - I hope you are joking about this. You say you must take all of these factors into the calculation of gravity but you have no idea how to do this alleged calculation. This freaking absurd.

The moon doesn't rotate very quickly, but it does revolve around the Earth much more quickly than the Earth revolves around the sun. The inclination of its orbit enables gravity to be on its poles.

Well you are wrong again. This is becoming a habit. The earths orbital velocity is 29 times faster than the moons orbital velocity. The moon has gravity on its poles because it is inclined? WTF are you completely bonkers?

Generally speaking, the faster a planet rotates and the larger its radius, the more gravity it will have and therefore the more massive it can become.

The larger the radius the more massive it can become??? Really? Alright this guy has GOT to be trolling nobody, would say stuff this stupid.
 
Because the momentum you have from galactic orbiting is never in the same direction as the earth's rotation.

So are you saying that the plane of the earths rotation is never in the plane of the galactic orbit? Have you any evidence for this, or is it just another one of your insights?

And since the velocity of the galactic orbit is over half a million miles per hour, the momentum from that should so totally overwhelm the earth's rotation, everything should fly away.

Whether the earth stops moving or not when you lose contact is totally irrelevant. Once you've been flung out into space at a tangent to the direction of the orbit, the earth will never catch up with you because it's not moving in the same direction.
 
Here I must disagree with you.

Oh my god. I took a quick look at his youtube. You're right he is serious. Oh my god......

Double+facepalm.jpg
 
So are you saying that the plane of the earths rotation is never in the plane of the galactic orbit? Have you any evidence for this, or is it just another one of your insights?

And since the velocity of the galactic orbit is over half a million miles per hour, the momentum from that should so totally overwhelm the earth's rotation, everything should fly away.

Whether the earth stops moving or not when you lose contact is totally irrelevant. Once you've been flung out into space at a tangent to the direction of the orbit, the earth will never catch up with you because it's not moving in the same direction.


It's not one of my insights. The galactic plane intersects the Earth at about 118 degrees from the ecliptic plane and it stays about 51.44 degrees from the tilt of the Earth's axis, even as it revolves around the Sun. The rotation of earth is 90 degrees from its axis. Last time I checked, 51.44 degrees was no where near 90 degrees.

I don't understand why you think that you will be flung out into space when the Earth is not accelerating you with proper acceleration.
 
For crying out loud this is just stupid - I hope you are joking about this. You say you must take all of these factors into the calculation of gravity but you have no idea how to do this alleged calculation. This freaking absurd.



Well you are wrong again. This is becoming a habit. The earths orbital velocity is 29 times faster than the moons orbital velocity. The moon has gravity on its poles because it is inclined? WTF are you completely bonkers?



The larger the radius the more massive it can become??? Really? Alright this guy has GOT to be trolling nobody, would say stuff this stupid.

I'm sorry, but the moon is both revolving around the sun at the same speed as the Earth AND revolving around the Earth. How is that not faster?


If a planet starts to release gases, and it doesn't rotate or revolve fast enough to keep them from flying off, then it's not going to have an atmosphere. The same thing would go for any other types of mass that would fly off the planet if it didn't rotate or revolve fast enough to keep them on it.

The problem is that you guys are looking at it all wrong. I don't know how to make you see it my way, but I can tell you that the way I see it makes a whole lot of sense.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but the earth [I assume you mean the moon] is both revolving around the sun at the same speed as the Earth AND revolving around the Sun. How is that not faster?

So now we are going to move to the dishonest stage? OK. You said The moon doesn't rotate very quickly, but it does revolve around the Earth much more quickly than the Earth revolves around the sun. That is what I responded to.

To answer your new question; I know that there is some math involved, but the moon does not have an average orbital velocity around the sun that is faster than the earth. An easy way to tell this is tonight go outside and look up in the sky, is there a moon? If there is then it must have the same averager orbital velocity around the sun that the earth does. Depending on the moons position it may have a higher or LOWER instantaneous orbital velocity than earth but it's average velocity is the same as earths. Gee you are still wrong!

The problem is that you guys are looking at it all wrong.

How ironic...

I don't know how to make you see it my way, but I can tell you that the way I see it makes a whole lot of sense.

I think to see it your way would require a traumatic brain injury, a lobotomy or possibly 1/2 pound of peyote.
 
So now we are going to move to the dishonest stage? OK. You said The moon doesn't rotate very quickly, but it does revolve around the Earth much more quickly than the Earth revolves around the sun. That is what I responded to.

To answer your new question; I know that there is some math involved, but the moon does not have an average orbital velocity around the sun that is faster than the earth. An easy way to tell this is tonight go outside and look up in the sky, is there a moon? If there is then it must have the same averager orbital velocity around the sun that the earth does. Depending on the moons position it may have a higher or LOWER instantaneous orbital velocity than earth but it's average velocity is the same as earths. Gee you are still wrong!



How ironic...



I think to see it your way would require a traumatic brain injury, a lobotomy or possibly 1/2 pound of peyote.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY THE PLANETS/MOONS MOVE RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ON THEIR SURFACES!!!!

How many times do I have to say this?

Just LOOK WITH YOUR EYES!! Use something like Celestia to observe the motion. While doing this imagine what that movement would feel like. Do you guys ever do that, or do you just get out your calculators?

I just got a call and I have a meeting with a physics professor next Wednesday, he is intrigued by my theory. Maybe I can get him to see it the way I do.
 
That's kind of a stupid way to look at it. We humans could observe and think long before we had any notion of math.
There's a reason the time right before the invention of science and modern math was called "The Dark Ages". No, humans didn't think in a way that resulted in figuring out how the universe works.
I have made observations that inertia and momentum (along with its conservation) are all that would be needed to make what we observe as gravity.
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what that sentence means. "Made observations" means you have done tests and taken measurements. You clearly have not. What you are doing is not "making observations" it is uninformed idle speculation.
It seems to me that everyone looks at gravity from a frame of reference where the Earth is at rest and nothing on its surface that isn't moving relative to a point on that surface has any momentum, when that just isn't true.
That just isn't true.
If you were in space and traveling in a straight line at 100km/s and you threw a ball behind you, it wouldn't stop following you unless you threw it at 100km/s. If you did that, it would just stop moving in the direction you are moving. However, you can't throw it that fast because of the conservation of momentum. You would be accelerated away from the ball. You and the ball would still be traveling in the same direction, but at different speeds. If you were to slow down to a speed lower than the ball was traveling, it would catch up to you eventually.
That's more or less fine but has nothing at all to do with gravity.
 
That's more or less fine but has nothing at all to do with gravity.

I know it doesn't have anything to do with "gravity". That is my point. You can use this same law for someone who throws a ball from the surface of the Earth. Only the Earth isn't moving in a straight line and you can't throw the ball against all of the directions in which it has momentum at once. If you know how to do that math, do it. You should see that the ball will collide with the Earth again.
 
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY THE PLANETS/MOONS MOVE RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ON THEIR SURFACES!!!!
As it happens, the sentence origin quoted and disagreed with was exactly correctly written insofar as its usage of language was correct*. But the claim it made was wrong. So here's the problem: even when your statements make sense, they are still wrong and when you are shown they are still wrong, you claim that's not what you meant and it is just a communication problem. So that means that what you say could mean literally anything. It makes it utterly impossible for anyone to properly evaluate your idea.

So tell me this: if it isn't possible for anyone to understand your idea, how do you know that the positive feedback you received isn't wrong?

*I suspect that was accidental and the problem is that you don't understand what it means to "move relative to something". You don't, for example, understand that all motion is relative and therefore no absolute motion is relevant (exists) in the way the laws of the universe work.
 
You can't really argue with a crank. They know they're right because they thought of it. You can't show them math, because they don't understand math. None of them have ever taken a physics course, and they're proud of their ignorance. And they all have boobtubes.

This is just another crank.
 
As it happens, the sentence origin quoted and disagreed with was exactly correctly written insofar as its usage of language was correct*. But the claim it made was wrong. So here's the problem: even when your statements make sense, they are still wrong and when you are shown they are still wrong, you claim that's not what you meant and it is just a communication problem. So that means that what you say could mean literally anything. It makes it utterly impossible for anyone to properly evaluate your idea.

So tell me this: if it isn't possible for anyone to understand your idea, how do you know that the positive feedback you received isn't wrong?

*I suspect that was accidental and the problem is that you don't understand what it means to "move relative to something". You don't, for example, understand that all motion is relative and therefore no absolute motion is relevant (exists) in the way the laws of the universe work.

Have you ever done the math for throwing a projectile from the surface of the earth using the momentum that it would have relative to the center of the galaxy while omitting gravity? If not, then how can you be so sure that it is wrong. If you have, or know where there is some online documentation that shows that this was done, please share it with me.
 
Back
Top