It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question about gravity.

page: 19
6
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The force acting on the mass in the vacuum, is the gravity from the mass of the earth around the vacuum. Just like in the picture.

If the tube were not there it would work like this. Each piece of the earth pulls directly towards it, with the net effect of all the pieces pulling directly down.

Maybe a thought experiment will help you.

Imagine a block with two ropes tied to it. One man is holding the rope, standing in front of the block and to the right. Another man is holding the other rope, and standing in front of the block and to the left. Now suppose both men pull the block directly towards themselves. Will not the block move directly forward, between the two men? The Block moves directly forward, despite the fact that there is no man standing directly in front of the block pulling it forward.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


Once the block moves to a position where it is directly between the two men, both will be pulling in opposite directions, with the net effect being zero. Putting the mass in a vacuum, is like putting the block on wheels. Once it reaches that point, it's momentum will carry it.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser
reply to post by spy66
 


The force acting on the mass in the vacuum, is the gravity from the mass of the earth around the vacuum. Just like in the picture.

If the tube were not there it would work like this. Each piece of the earth pulls directly towards it, with the net effect of all the pieces pulling directly down.

Maybe a thought experiment will help you.

Imagine a block with two ropes tied to it. One man is holding the rope, standing in front of the block and to the right. Another man is holding the other rope, and standing in front of the block and to the left. Now suppose both men pull the block directly towards themselves. Will not the block move directly forward, between the two men? The Block moves directly forward, despite the fact that there is no man standing directly in front of the block pulling it forward.


I understand your argument. But you can not compare your argument to how the mass will travel to the other end. What force represents the rope in my case? How does earth influence the mass within the vacuum to make it travel to the other end?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

NOW WHO IS RAISING THE WHITE FLAG!?

You state Gravity is a FORCE. You state that I am wrong and what is being discussed here is a simple question answered by Physics and Math yet you cannot PROVE what you state. Instead you DEFLECT by answering that to PROVE what you post would take a lengthy dissertation?

Sounds like a COP OUT! The REALITY is that it is you who have ignored Maxwell's statement. How unfortunate for you that you used it. Split Infinity



????
No sweetie, you really are having some issues with this. I don't know if perhaps English isn't your first language and you are losing something in the translation or if you are just choosing not to comprehend.
Gravity is a Force, by the very DEFINITION sweetie, you don't get more fundamental than that. A force is not a physical object, it is an effect that a physical object has.

If you push a button with your finger, your finger exerts a force on that button. Your finger isn't a force in and of itself, it is a finger. If a tow-truck pulls you out of a ditch, the tow truck is exerting a force, it's not a force in and of itself, it is a tow truck.

Seriously, you have to understand the fundamentals before you are going to be able to discuss them.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Moduli
 

Although Gravity has been defined as the Weak Force...and you have provided a definition as to what constitutes a Force...Gravity is described as such because we simply do not have the proper vocabulary for it's TRUE DESCRIPTION.

You state that Gravity is a Force because a Force is described as anything that provides a Change in Momentum. Well then by all means...explain what Momentum is being changed as LIGHT or PHOTONS travel the Space/Time Curvature into a Black Hole?

Where is your CHANGE IN MOMENTUM? Split Infinity



So you see that it IS A FORCE!
...this is like pulling teeth....



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser
"Faraday did not have a background in sophisticated mathematics consequently he does not articulate his discovery through a complex equation. Faraday describes his discovery to us as a visual image of "Lines of force" which create "an Electro magnetic field" or "fields of gravity". "
source
This is from columbia university. It would appear that you are the one who is wrong.

This is why none of the other scientists during Faraday's time took him serious. It wasn't until after his death, that James Maxwell was able to describe his findings mathematically. Only then were they taken seriously by academia.

It's is important to note, however, that Faraday was right before Maxwell convinced the world. Not only that, but his experiments proved that he was right. Maxwell didn't make Faraday right, he just convinced Academia.
edit on 31-10-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)


Read more closely. It doesn't say he's not capable of mathematics, it says he doesn't have a background in it. Those are two very, VERY different things. Many people without a formal background in mathematics are still quite capable of doing math, they just don't have a "degree" in it.
The earlier statement was that he wasn't capable of doing math, not even basic trig and that is false. He DID use mathematics on a regular basis, including trig and calculus. He didn't present his findings with the equations that prove them correct, but the equations that prove them correct were added by someone else AND mathematics was used by him while he was working on his investigations.
Concentrating on the physical representation doesn't mean that mathematics isn't used, it just means it wasn't presented with the findings. He was very capable of using mathematics. He had no formal training in it, but wasn't ignorant of it at all.
Do you not see the difference in the two??



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser

this demonstrates that there is in fact gravity acting on the ball despite the vacuum. Gravity propagates through space regardless of the medium. Gravity acts on a straight line between to objects. Thus, the mass of the earth does not have to be directly under the ball to act on it.

The Black circle is the weight. The large green circle is the earth. The little black boxes each represents a little piece of the earth. Each red line is the line of force between each little piece, and the weight. You can think of the whole earth as being made up of little pieces, each pulling along a similar line. The net effect due to all of the lines will result in a downward force.
edit on 31-10-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)


Which is the sin of the angle. You don't have to have a degree in trigonometry to use trigonometry. Just as you unknowingly used trig (correctly) in your explanation, so did others who you claimed had no ability in math.... only the other guy knew it was trig and even wrote it as such.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Maybe you can tell me what exact force that is pulling the 10kg mass down.

It can not be the 10kg mass in it self. As you say its just a mass. There has to be a physical force pulling the mass down. What is that force exactly? Dont say gravity because that dosent tell me anthing.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
There has to be a physical force pulling the mass down. What is that force exactly?


Gravity




Originally posted by spy66
... because that dosent tell me anthing.


I agree. We've come to that realisation during this discussion.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Maybe you can tell me what exact force that is pulling the 10kg mass down.

Gravity. Remove the vacuum tunnel from the equation for a moment. Place the mass on the ground. Where does the mass go? It's not flying away just because the vacuum tunnel is gone, right? It stays on the ground, why? What is keeping it on the ground? If you think it's something other than gravity say so now. If you agree it's gravity holding it down then add the vacuum tunnel now. The same gravity is still there but the ground has been replaced by the vacuum tunnel enabling the mass to fall. This doesn't change the gravity pulling the mass down, you've only removed the earth that was supporting the mass. Are you with me so far?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


"Because he was self trained, however, he had no grasp of mathematics and could therefore not understand a word of Ampère's papers."
wolfram
You saying that he had no formal backround in math, but could still do it, is good and all. Except that it simply is not true. That Faraday had little ability in math is a well documented, and well known, fact of science history. You want to ignore the fact, because in your world view a man can't be good at science, or as a thinker, unless he has a grasp of mathematics. You're blinded by your bias.

Go read a biography or ask an expert in science history. That Faraday had little ability in math is a fact.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


"Faraday was a commoner, the son of a blacksmith, and thus had little formal education. He left school after the primary years to be apprenticed to a bookbinder, and he reputedly learned his first science by reading the article on electricity in the Encylopaedia Britannica as it went through the shop. He was taught no mathematics beyond simple arithmetic, and he never felt that he had thereby missed anything that he needed, even as a physical scientist. He thus turned directly to read the book of nature without adornment and went on to share it with all of us, as if confident it had been written for the very enjoyment of us all. It is in this sense that St. John’s shares with him a fundamental, life-giving dialectical conviction. Faraday’s unmathematical science is fundamentally akin to our dialectical seminar."

source

This is from a speech given during Michael Faraday's own lifetime, while Michael Faraday was in the room. If it weren't true that he never thought he needed math beyond simple arithmetic, don't you think he might have cleared it up for everyone?

No, this clearly proves that he didn't have an ability in math. You were simply wrong in you assumption to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by renegadeloser

this demonstrates that there is in fact gravity acting on the ball despite the vacuum. Gravity propagates through space regardless of the medium. Gravity acts on a straight line between to objects. Thus, the mass of the earth does not have to be directly under the ball to act on it.

The Black circle is the weight. The large green circle is the earth. The little black boxes each represents a little piece of the earth. Each red line is the line of force between each little piece, and the weight. You can think of the whole earth as being made up of little pieces, each pulling along a similar line. The net effect due to all of the lines will result in a downward force.
edit on 31-10-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)


Which is the sin of the angle. You don't have to have a degree in trigonometry to use trigonometry. Just as you unknowingly used trig (correctly) in your explanation, so did others who you claimed had no ability in math.... only the other guy knew it was trig and even wrote it as such.

A) I didn't unknowingly use trigonometry in my explanation. I knowingly used trigonometry in my explanation. Keep in mind that I'm in my final semesters of an engineering degree

B) There's a difference between having an intuitive understanding of the concepts involved in math, and having an ability in math itself. In my example I didn't use trigonometry, I demonstrated some of it's principals.

Saying you have an ability in mathematics means that you can use the rigid notations, and computations involved in the system. Faraday could do no such thing, thus can't be said to have had an ability in math.

Mathematics is a system of notation and operation used to express and utilize a certain set of ideas. Those ideas in and of themselves are not math.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Maybe you can tell me what exact force that is pulling the 10kg mass down.

It can not be the 10kg mass in it self. As you say its just a mass. There has to be a physical force pulling the mass down. What is that force exactly? Dont say gravity because that dosent tell me anthing.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


You may not like it, but it's gravity



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


"Because he was self trained, however, he had no grasp of mathematics and could therefore not understand a word of Ampère's papers."
wolfram
You saying that he had no formal backround in math, but could still do it, is good and all. Except that it simply is not true. That Faraday had little ability in math is a well documented, and well known, fact of science history. You want to ignore the fact, because in your world view a man can't be good at science, or as a thinker, unless he has a grasp of mathematics. You're blinded by your bias.

Go read a biography or ask an expert in science history. That Faraday had little ability in math is a fact.


As a professor of Mathematics, I disagree. Nomenclature is not what math is about, it's how math is communicated. He was very capable of mathematics and used it, he just didn't communicate in the language of mathematics. "little ability" and "no ability" are two very different things.
He used mathematical concepts on a regular basis, he didn't use mathematical notation to communicate his ideas. That doesn't mean he didn't use math, it just means he didn't write his findings with mathematical nomenclature.

Math is not a set of symbols and equations, it's a way of thinking. It is a science unto itself, actually the most pure of sciences. He didn't have a formal education in mathematics so he didn't use the nomenclature or equations. He DID use the concepts and ideas of mathematics. Not all math is formal, just as not all physics is formal nor is all of anything formal....except maybe formalities





posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Maybe you can tell me what exact force that is pulling the 10kg mass down.

It can not be the 10kg mass in it self. As you say its just a mass. There has to be a physical force pulling the mass down. What is that force exactly? Dont say gravity because that dosent tell me anthing.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


You may not like it, but it's gravity


What gravity force exactly is pooling the mass down to the other end?

Gravity can be a lot of things. And there is not a lot that can pull on the 10kg mass.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by spy66
 



Maybe you can tell me what exact force that is pulling the 10kg mass down.

Gravity. Remove the vacuum tunnel from the equation for a moment. Place the mass on the ground. Where does the mass go? It's not flying away just because the vacuum tunnel is gone, right? It stays on the ground, why? What is keeping it on the ground? If you think it's something other than gravity say so now. If you agree it's gravity holding it down then add the vacuum tunnel now. The same gravity is still there but the ground has been replaced by the vacuum tunnel enabling the mass to fall. This doesn't change the gravity pulling the mass down, you've only removed the earth that was supporting the mass. Are you with me so far?



Well if we remove the vacuum tunnel. It is the atmosphere that keeps the 10kg to the ground.

The atmosphere that keeps the 10kg mass down comes from particles/gasses produced from earths solids,water and plants. Earths mass in it self doesn't keep the 10kg mass on the ground.

If earth didn't have a atmosphere. Earth's center wouldn't read much pressure/mass. because there wouldn't be a force pushing the top layers down to the center.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
What gravity force exactly is pooling the mass down to the other end?


The force that causes the object to move of course!


Gravity can be a lot of things. And there is not a lot that can pull on the 10kg mass.


Except gravity...

You still have not explained why you think a vacuum somehow stops gravity....



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Well if we remove the vacuum tunnel. It is the atmosphere that keeps the 10kg to the ground. The atmosphere that keeps the 10kg mass down comes from particles/gasses produced from earths solids,water and plants. Earths mass in it self doesn't keep the 10kg mass on the ground.

Would this hold true if the Earth were no longer flat but say, spherical?

ETA: I believe we have the crux of OP's problem here. (To state the obvious.)
edit on 31-10-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by spy66
 



Well if we remove the vacuum tunnel. It is the atmosphere that keeps the 10kg to the ground. The atmosphere that keeps the 10kg mass down comes from particles/gasses produced from earths solids,water and plants. Earths mass in it self doesn't keep the 10kg mass on the ground.

Would this hold true if the Earth were no longer flat but say, spherical?

ETA: I believe we have the crux of OP's problem here. (To state the obvious.)
edit on 31-10-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)


If earth didn't have a atmosphere. Earth's center wouldn't read much pressure/mass. because there wouldn't be a force pushing the top layers down to the center.







 
6
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join