If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 



Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Further proof gravity is a push...
Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed,
and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Then what would happen? It would bounce a few times, and then finally contact the surface like two cogwheels grinding the surface to a mushy pulp, and then finally come to rest. Like two uneven barbells. Yet we don't see any planets like that do we? 
Ads 
#2




Further proof gravity is a push...
Rick Sobie wrote:
Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003) "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive. o Gravity is a longrange interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions. o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2  =  =  ~ 10^36 F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0) where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge. These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long range were there any largescale objects with net electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any largescale net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the universe on the largest scales. 
#3




Further proof gravity is a push...
Rick Sobie wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Rick Sobie wrote: Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003) "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive. Excuse me? Tell me how gravity is an attractive force.... You can test this a number of ways o astronomical observation involving motions of heavenly bodies o replicate Cavendish experiments o slip on the ice o jump off a cliff 
#4




Further proof gravity is a push...
Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Rick Sobie wrote: Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003) "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. Newtonian Theory = Metaphysics. The fact that F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 works well in nonrelativistic speeds is purely accidental and derivable from a mixture of empirical and metaphysical assumptions using Euclidean geometry (Read the Principia. Copernican and Ptolemaic systems are Kinematically equivalent. Wake up. o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive. What is this "gravitational charge" thing? Harry Potter stuff? o Gravity is a longrange interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions. Actionatadistance is metaphysics. Someone must warn poor kids that suffer in schools. o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2  =  =  ~ 10^36 F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0) where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge. Proton rocket? These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, [snip out distorted views of reality] The above four postulation, no facts by no means, explain nothing. They are sham. (Actually an alchemists' view of the world). 
#5




Further proof gravity is a push...
Rick Sobie wrote:
Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, [snip] "were a Dyson sphere" Subjunctive case, idiot. "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde." Do you have two grandfathers?  Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! 
#6




Further proof gravity is a push...
In article [email protected],
Rick Sobie wrote: Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Then what would happen? It would bounce a few times, and then finally contact the surface like two cogwheels grinding the surface to a mushy pulp, and then finally come to rest. Like two uneven barbells. Yet we don't see any planets like that do we? If the moon were a Dyson sphere and its power unit failed, why would it do anything that the moon isn't doing now? Is the moon's power supply still in good shape?  "Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig." 
#7




Further proof gravity is a push...
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, It is not a Dyson sphere; that idea is easily disproven by simply considering what the EarthMoon system would look like if the Moon contained a red dwarf star (minimum mass = 0.08 Msolar). This has been pointed out several times. Also, you said in the "Hoagland Debunked!" thread The moon is not a Dyson Sphere, it is a disabled battle planet. Granted, you are posing a hypothetical case, but I'm curious as to which you think it is: Dyson sphere or "battle planet"? Have you decided? and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. No; the Moon is in free fall around the Earth (well, the EarthMoon barycenter, which is inside the Earth). No propulsion system keeps it aloft. In fact, tidal interactions (*not* a fictional repulsive central force) are forcing it gradually *away from* the Earth. The gravitational force between the two is given by the equation F=GMm/R^2, where G is a positive constant, M = mass of the Earth, m = mass of the Moon, and R is the distance between the centers of the two bodies. The equation indicates the gravitational force is attractive. When applied to the Moon's motion, the equation describes the observed physical reality. Why, then should the gravitational force be described as "pushing" (i.e., repulsive)? Then what would happen? It would bounce a few times, and then finally contact the surface like two cogwheels grinding the surface to a mushy pulp, and then finally come to rest. Like two uneven barbells. Yet we don't see any planets like that do we? No, we don't. Because planets and their moons don't work that way. 
#8




Further proof gravity is a push...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:26:01 0800, sts060 wrote:
It would bounce a few times, and then finally contact the surface like two cogwheels grinding the surface to a mushy pulp, and then finally come to rest. Like two uneven barbells. Yet we don't see any planets like that do we? No, we don't. Because planets and their moons don't work that way. I think Rick has decided the best way to attract visitors to his sites is to provide the most 'frightening' KoOk scenario's. Hollow moon? Battle Planet? It seems like there is a great deal of manufactured reality trailing out behind his suppositions that isn't on the table, and isn't being shared. So much so that I betcha he has volumes of 'Fantasy Fiziks' to back up each of his regurgitations. Then you come along with actual numbers, reality, reasoned thinking and hope to battle for his conscious attention? Naw, in the real world there's too much work involved. In Fantasy Fiziks you need only change your mind and all problems are erased. A noble quest but I don't think it will have much success. Good luck though! O' 
#9




Further proof gravity is a push...
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:[email protected] "Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Rick Sobie wrote: Lets suppose, that the moon, was a Dyson sphere, and its power unit failed, and its orbit began to decay, then it would hit the earth. Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003) "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive. Excuse me? Tell me how gravity is an attractive force, when mass bends spacetime like a rubber sheet with a ball bearing on it. That is the common explanation of GR. Quite right, I don't believe gravity has been taught as an attractive force for ...what...over half a century. "The earth travels in a straight line through curved spacetime along a geodesic created by the mass of the sun." To quote my physics prof. In addition dark matter is considered to be matter that is not attractive, although that is not quite right. It's merely a system property mistaken for matter and energy. But that's another topic. Is that what you mean by attractive gravity? That mass on one side of the universe, 50 billion light years across, can affect mass on the other side, when the universe is only 15 billion years old? A good analogy to understand gravity goes something like this. If two people on earth started walking in a straight line but with some small angle between them, then they would eventually cross paths on the other side. If one were not aware that the earth is round they might conclude the paths crossed due to some mysterious unseen force at a distance. When in fact it's simply due to an unseen geometry, the curved surface of the earth. In space the unseen geometry creates the same effect so we call it gravity to make it easier to understand. There is no force at a distance. http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html this is gravity ... http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/Time_travel.txt If your explanation was correct, Ranger 5 would not have missed the moon by 450 miles and the Beagle 2 would have landed. o Gravity is a longrange interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions. o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2  =  =  ~ 10^36 F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0) where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge. These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. What governs the structure of the universe is ultimately due to dynamic attractor of classical motion formed by the static attractor of mass in an unstable equilibrium with the chaotic attractor of cosmic expansion. Classical motion is the phase transition state between mass and expansion. The final probable state of this dynamic attractor is to spontaneously selforganize and generate increasing order over time. Contrary to the common misconception that the second law infers increasing disorder over time, the universe does just the opposite, order and structure increases over time. These distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long range were there any largescale objects with net electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any largescale net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the universe on the largest scales. The inverse square law simply defines a fluid, as opposed to a solid or gas. Any fluid motion has short range order combined with long range disorder. Of course what ...we...define as a fluid in entirely subjective. Since such definitions are dependent of the observer and the scale of observation. For example, if the observer defines the system to be composed of the earth, water and sky, the fluid attractor would of course be water. If the system were defined as the genetics, selection and mutation, the fluid realm would be selection, the dynamic attractor of that subjectively defined system. And so on. Everything is relative, even the universal constants. Jonathan s 
#10




Further proof gravity is a push...
unplonk
"jonathan" wrote in message ... The inverse square law simply defines a fluid, as opposed to a solid or gas. Since when did a gas stop being a fluid? A gas has been considered a fluid for as long as there has been the study of fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics of physical systems consider liquids, gasses, and plasmas all to be fluid. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Further proof gravity is a push...  Rick Sobie  Astronomy Misc  1  March 16th 04 06:20 AM 
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies  Archimedes Plutonium  Astronomy Misc  18  January 12th 04 09:40 AM 
Debate on GR  Jack Sarfatti  Astronomy Misc  0  January 9th 04 01:53 AM 
Sakharov's Emergent Gravity  Jack Sarfatti  Astronomy Misc  0  November 17th 03 08:07 PM 
Oceanographers Catch First Wave Of Gravity Mission's Success  Ron Baalke  Science  13  August 7th 03 06:24 AM 