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?

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 long-range 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 large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.

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

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 non-relativistic 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 long-range 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.

Action-at-a-distance 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).

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!

In article U8u5c.814118$ts4.511491@pd7tw3no,
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."

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:U8u5c.814118$ts4.511491@pd7tw3no...
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 Earth-Moon 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 Earth-Moon
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.

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'

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:XPw5c.63121$Up2.13047@pd7tw1no...

"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 space-time
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 space-time
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 long-range 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 self-organize 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 large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale 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

--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.