about newtons gravitation theory

A person from yawatmal(maharshtra/India) has claimed that wt. of body
do not depend on graviattion but the density of space. He expalined on
experiment in which he had kept one one kg material supended to spring
balance. and this is kept in one bottle and that bottle is kept in
pther bottele. He claims that on heating density of material changes
so spring balance shows different wt. than previous. .Is it possible
if so How?

On Sep 17, 6:38*am, wrote:
A person from yawatmal(maharshtra/India) has claimed that wt. of body
do not depend on graviattion but the density of space. He expalined on
experiment in which he had kept one one kg material supended to spring
balance. and this is kept *in one bottle and that bottle is kept in
pther bottele. He claims that on heating density of material changes
so spring balance shows different wt. than previous. .Is it possible
if so How?

Garbage. Many experiments have shown inertial mass to be equal to
gravitatonal mass.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:38:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

A person from yawatmal(maharshtra/India) has claimed that wt. of body
do not depend on graviattion but the density of space. He expalined on
experiment in which he had kept one one kg material supended to spring
balance. and this is kept in one bottle and that bottle is kept in
pther bottele. He claims that on heating density of material changes
so spring balance shows different wt. than previous. .Is it possible
if so How?

Is it possible? Yes. But I doubt very much that's the explanation for
what he observed. In fact, gravity has been measured with exquisitely
sensitive scales- the sort of thing that you don't just build in your
garage), and nobody has seen a dependence on density. Our understanding
of gravity has been tested far beyond what a "spring balance" can
resolve.

Assuming this guy isn't just a nut, and that he actually attempted a
serious experiment, it's far more likely that the method he used to heat
his sample affected the balance. A typical spring balance will show more
variation in its measurement from a temperature shift of a few
millidegrees than it will from gravitational effects. There are many
other systematic errors in this type of experiment that are orders of
magnitude larger than the effect being measured.

Our ability to measure mass has become so good that labs need to
compensate for lunar and solar tidal effects and gravitational noise
from mass motion in the Earth's interior. It seems really unlikely that
the experimenter in question took these things into account (or that his
scale was even sensitive enough for them to matter).
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 17, 5:14*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:38:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
A person from yawatmal(maharshtra/India) has claimed that wt. of body
do not depend on graviattion but the density of space. He expalined on
experiment in which he had kept one one kg material supended to spring
balance. and this is kept *in one bottle and that bottle is kept in
pther bottele. He claims that on heating density of material changes
so spring balance shows different wt. than previous. .Is it possible
if so How?

Is it possible? Yes. But I doubt very much that's the explanation for
what he observed. In fact, gravity has been measured with exquisitely
sensitive scales- the sort of thing that you don't just build in your
garage), and nobody has seen a dependence on density. Our understanding
of gravity has been tested far beyond what a "spring balance" can
resolve.

Assuming this guy isn't just a nut, and that he actually attempted a
serious experiment, it's far more likely that the method he used to heat
his sample affected the balance. A typical spring balance will show more
variation in its measurement from a temperature shift of a few
millidegrees than it will from gravitational effects. There are many
other systematic errors in this type of experiment that are orders of
magnitude larger than the effect being measured.

Our ability to measure mass has become so good that labs need to
compensate for lunar and solar tidal effects and gravitational noise
from mass motion in the Earth's interior. It seems really unlikely that
the experimenter in question took these things into account (or that his
scale was even sensitive enough for them to matter).
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Care to explain how the viscous composition of the Earth is moving.

Didn't think so !.

The Earth's interior is not exempt from generalised rules governing
the rotation of a viscous composition,basically the Earth' interior
below the fractured crust does not rotate as a single unit but
displays the traits of differential rotation.I know this by way of the
Mid-Atlantic ridge and the generation of crust off that ridge -

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...2/60018786.JPG

The energy required to cause the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere
also drives the motion of the relatively thin surface crust and were
dynamicists not tied to Isaac's coat tails,we would be discussing
elements of rotational dynamics effects on crustal dynamics such as
the motion of the fractured crust across the less than perfectly
spherical planet and its geological consequences.

As for Isaac,he built his terrestrial ballistics agenda on an
astrological framework,in short,his agenda never worked unless you
consider fitting the orbital motion of the Earth into the calendar
system to be some sort of achievement.Time to grow up guys !.

On Sep 17, 9:37 am, oriel36 wrote:

The energy required to cause the 40 km deviation from a perfect sphere
also drives the motion of the relatively thin surface crust

No energy is required to cause a spinning Earth to continue to spin.

It is the fact that the Earth is spinning that creates an (apparent)
force contrary to gravitation that is strongest at the Equator. Thus,
no energy expenditure is involved in maintaining the oblateness of the
Earth.

But the Earth's surface is of cool, solid rock. Yet, we have
volcanoes. So it is hotter inside the Earth than at the surface. So,
underground, where the rock is still liquid, the part of it closes to
the cool surface cools off... and then, being denser, it falls down,
while hotter magma rises. This means convection currents, like we see
every day around us, and *that* is where the energy for continental
drift comes from.

We follow Newton because he is right; calculations done according to
Newton correspond to the things that actually happen.

John Savard

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

No energy is required to cause a spinning Earth to continue to spin...

It doesn't matter. Once again, Gerald has totally missed the point. Of
course, his position here (like most everywhere) represents, shall we
say, a _minority_ opinion. But regardless of what mechanism he wants to
hold responsible for the motions in the Earth's interior, the only thing
relevant to my points was that motion is taking place, and it produces
noise in the gravitational field that we actually have the capability to
detect with our instrumentation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 18, 6:05*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

No energy is required to cause a spinning Earth to continue to spin...

It doesn't matter. Once again, Gerald has totally missed the point. Of
course, his position here (like most everywhere) represents, shall we
say, a _minority_ opinion.

A minority of one in point of fact,however,the precise rotational
details of what causes the Earth to deviate from a perfect sphere are
already there via stellar dynamics and the correlation between maximum
Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation.To put
this another way,it is almost impossible to resolve the 40 km
planetary deviation without apply differential rotation to the moving
viscous composition and thereby replacing the stationary Earth pseudo-
dynamic of 'convection cells' (which requires no reference to
planetary shape or motion).

I do not accuse anyone of missing points,there are multiple ones in
this thread ,for instance, it shows that dynamicists are excellent at
isolating processes while being oblivious to physical considerations
of structural and timekeeping astronomy.This is an inherited thing
from the 17th century when they organised the experiment-fest known as
the Royal Society using Newton's treatise as a platform for
introducing the lab into the celestial arena,it sounds great until it
is demonstrated the price of tampering with known astronomical
principles to suit conclusions such as terrestrial ballistics and
planetary motion or the sidereal time justification for the motions of
the Earth.

I have nothing to gain by unduly criticising dynamicists who can
actually apply generalised rules for rotating viscous compositions to
the Earth's interior via fluid dynamics however the entire community
seems to be engaged in some silly attempt to create a 'trekkie'
environment where matters of faith are treated like ignorance and
superstition,in fact,that ideology may now constitute a religion on
its own.Again,I am a Christian astronomer who is deeply involved in
the Western astronomical tradition which means that in astronomical
matters I am dragged back into discussing matters of faith in order to
counter those who oppose the intuitive intelligence required to
appreciate both Christ/Christianity and astronomical methods and
insights.In short,if you are anti-religious or approach matters of
faith at the lowest level (such as literal interpretation of
Genesis),you are unlikely to be capable of appreciating the intricate
web which is structural astronomy,again,St Augustine concisely states
the obvious -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." Augustine

This is the most balanced view that I know of and if genuine people
wish to extract themselves from this quagmire of science vs religion
then they can at least see that our ancestors were not fools when the
need to keep Spiritual and other matters aside for practical purposes.







But regardless of what mechanism he wants to
hold responsible for the motions in the Earth's interior, the only thing
relevant to my points was that motion is taking place, and it produces
noise in the gravitational field that we actually have the capability to
detect with our instrumentation.


Right now Chris,there are many people curious as to know whether our
dramatically changing climate is due to human influences or if there
is some natural mechanism involved,they do not want to know about
'gravitational fields ,inertial masses or all the other vocabulary
surrounding astronomy at the moment,they simply want a clear response
from responsible people and perhaps some day they will have it.

I am absolutely bewildered at the response to the imaging taken of
Uranus which would ease the interpretation of the orbital component as
separate to diurnal rotation,not because the older explanation for
seasonal variations is unsatisfactory but more than the orbital
component is fascinating in its own right.Although I am hesitant to
graft this motion immediately into the problem of climate change,it
exposes a definite and clear answer to the question of whether climate
change is due to human or natural mechanisms.The answer is an
important statement - if it is not possible to assign the correct
relationship to daily rotational and orbital motions,their
relationship and their seasonal effects,it is incontrovertible that
more complicated issues like long term climate will suffer the same
fate.












_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

O. [...]n Sep 18, 12:18 am, oriel36 wrote:
[...]
I believe in the god Immanuel Velikovsky.

OK, that explains your postings to sci.astro.amateur

On Sep 18, 12:18 am, oriel36 wrote:
[...]
I know Billy-Bob Hoaxland and Frankie Carlotto.

Fantastic!

Would you please ask Carlotto to PhotoShop two pictures of me
with Brittany Spears?

One picture alongside his faked "Face on Mars", and

one picture along the faked "Crystal Palaces on the Moon".

Thank you!

On Sep 18, 6:05*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

No energy is required to cause a spinning Earth to continue to spin...

It doesn't matter. Once again, Gerald has totally missed the point. Of
course, his position here (like most everywhere) represents, shall we
say, a _minority_ opinion. But regardless of what mechanism he wants to
hold responsible for the motions in the Earth's interior, the only thing
relevant to my points was that motion is taking place, and it produces
noise in the gravitational field that we actually have the capability to
detect with our instrumentation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/ob...geposter_2.gif

No offence to stationary Earth ideas like 'thermal convection cells'
but if the paleomagnetic signatures are showing isochronal
development of crust across the entire length of the planet
(notwithstanding the orientation of that development) then surely a
reasonable person infers some sort of rotational component.

I would not even want to hear how thermal convection cells mesh in
with the paleomagnetic data yet the entire interior of the Earth's
composition and motion is designed around that pseudo-dynamic.The
telescopic instruments already pick up differential rotation in
stars,there are probably instruments picking up differential rotation
of the viscous interior of the Earth but misinterpret it as
differential rotation between 'cores'.

I don't get this,with stellar dynamicists already working with
variations in stellar shape due to different maximum Equatorial speeds
and with differential rotation as a given,how are they managing to
ignore that 40 km giant clue in respect to the fluid dynamics of the
Earth's interior.It may not be much to go on but that maximum
Equatorial speed along with the 40 km deviation must surely appeal as
a tantalising clue as to the composition and motion of the interior.

I am not a dynamicist,I am an astronomer who takes physical
considerations into account that dynamicists do not have to or do not
want to yet even I can see the possibilities of apply rotational
geodynamics to crustal dynamics and evolution.I do not have the
restraints of self-moderation that you guys impose on yourselves but
what is the point if you cannot even discuss basic rotational
consequences short of denying that they exist and especially
geological and climatological consequences ?.