It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Question about gravity.

page: 23
6
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by spy66

No I haven't done that experiment. You didn't answer my question about the moons gravitational effect on the Earth. I'm not trying to be smart or make you look stupid, I am genuinely trying to help you to understand so at least explain to me why you think that your theory is correct?

Gravity and atmosphere (air) are unrelated. There are planets without an atmosphere for example which still maintain a gravity because of their mass. In the case of this tunnel you are speaking of, it isn't just floating, it is in direct contact or infact a part of the 'surface' of the Earth's interior. Is this not the same as the bell resting on the base of the jar?

Things don't float in a vacuum, they float in an environment where there is no gravity. Inside the earth there will always be gravity. Where you are within the Earth will affect which direction the force of gravity is acting upon a subject. In the centre of the Earth, the centre of gravity would act equally from all directions meaning that there would be nowhere to fall to.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by spy66

That is a good question.

Thank you, I think so too.

But easy to answer.

Apparently not or you would have done so.

A mass like a rock consists of many different compressed particles. Each particle has a specific mass/weight.

Why? It's not atmospheric pressure.

How much the rock weighs compare to our standard measurement depending on the atmosphere you measure the rock in.

Fill a container with compressible matter and weigh it. Compress more matter into the container and the amount of matter in the container now weighs more. The atmospheric pressure has not increased. The weight does not depend on the atmosphere in which it is measured.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by PurpleChiten

My teacher is just a human being who works as a teacher. This does not mean he understand this at all.

A work description or a title dose not mean correct knowledge. Its just like religion. A priest or a pope don't have to know more about God then a person who is not a priest or a pope.

Actually, it does mean he understands it. This is very basic stuff and he has a degree that's well beyond any of this (I know because I do too). You are only on the very beginning cusp of physics and are getting it wrong, you will not be able to progress to the more interesting and challenging branches because you can't seem to comprehend the basics.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by spy66

If yo dive and let out some air. Where will it go and why?

If you take the vacuum tunnel were there is no mass underneath the 10kg mass. the 10kg mass would not be effected by earth gravity.

If you try to determine the weight of the vacuum column, what weight you you measure half way through earth.
I bet zero weight all the way.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

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

A vacuum doesn't take out the mass, it takes out the air. The mass around the tunnel is still producing gravity and the vertical components of the vectors are pulling the weight down

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by spy66

The SOHO should have traveled faster then earths is orbeting the sun.

Why? I know what you mean when you say it should orbit faster but why should it?

I'm trying to understand you.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
reply to post by spy66

No I haven't done that experiment. You didn't answer my question about the moons gravitational effect on the Earth. I'm not trying to be smart or make you look stupid, I am genuinely trying to help you to understand so at least explain to me why you think that your theory is correct?

Gravity and atmosphere (air) are unrelated. There are planets without an atmosphere for example which still maintain a gravity because of their mass. In the case of this tunnel you are speaking of, it isn't just floating, it is in direct contact or infact a part of the 'surface' of the Earth's interior. Is this not the same as the bell resting on the base of the jar?

Things don't float in a vacuum, they float in an environment where there is no gravity. Inside the earth there will always be gravity. Where you are within the Earth will affect which direction the force of gravity is acting upon a subject. In the centre of the Earth, the centre of gravity would act equally from all directions meaning that there would be nowhere to fall to.

I'm beginning to question his capability of comprehending this. Perhaps just let him enjoy the ignorance and remain as a good source for the sellers of sci-fi that isn't well written. He'll buy into some of the extreme ideas they put forth and help them put food on the table I guess.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by spy66

And the bell in our and your experiment was pre placed on the surface. No, so it wouldn't move.

Turn the jar over. Why does the bell fall?

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by renegadeloser

Originally posted by spy66

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)

If the atmosphere holds the mass down, then what holds the atmosphere down?

I have answered this one before.

Our atmosphere consists of gasses with different weight/mass. The lighter the gas is the further up it will be.
The lighter gasses keep heavier gasses from traveling up. Our atmosphere comes from particles emitted from earths solids, plants and water.

A weather balloon raises up because of the weight of the gas inside the balloon is lighter than the gases close to the surface. If you fill the balloon with air it will not raise unless it is heated up.

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

What keeps the heavy particles down, and the lighter particles up? Why not the other way around? Better yet, why not a random mixture of gases?

If lighter gases prevent heavier ones from rising. Is not near vacuum the lightest gas imaginable? Wouldn't it have the greatest "down keeping" effect of all the gases?

By the way in the lab where I work we use a vacuum chamber, because the compounds we work with are extremely reactive. Even after 99% of the gas has been pumped out of the chamber, the objects still fall at the same rate. The objects are still just as heavy.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:56 AM
This will be my last post in this thread. I have become thoroughly convinced that spy66 is a troll. We have all been duped into wasting our time.

In any case explain this gravity independent of atmosphere
Here's an experiment which effectively disproves your idea. It works like this. A weight is placed on a scale so that it depresses a certain amount. Then a lead ball is placed above the weight, and the scale lifts, ever so slightly, due to the gravitational pull of the lead ball. You can't argue that the ball is decreasing the atmospheric pressure, because it was there all the time. You can't argue it's because the ball is shielding it from the downward force of the atmosphere, because it still works if you turn the whole thing on it's side and use springs.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by PurpleChiten

My teacher is just a human being who works as a teacher. This does not mean he understand this at all.

A work description or a title dose not mean correct knowledge. Its just like religion. A priest or a pope don't have to know more about God then a person who is not a priest or a pope.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

This is a real psychological phenomenon that is all to common in real life and especially this website:

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1) tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2) fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3) fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4) recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

edit on 1-11-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by john_bmth

Sharp eye there John

I think you're definitely on to something!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by john_bmth

That is quite interesting. And it applies to everyone here.

You should read the Allegory of the cave by Plato.

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

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by john_bmth

That is quite interesting. And it applies to everyone here.

You should read the Allegory of the cave by Plato.

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

You should answer the questions.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by spy66

If I dont understand something, I ask questions, I dont create uninformed pet theories and then present them as fact.

You dont understand physics. It is no coincidence that everyone disagrees with you on this, from your professor to people on this site.

And no, it is not the same as religion and priests. Science is objectively testable, contrary to religion. A priest does not have God in a test tube, a priest cannot perform miracles. A physicist can test and falsify his theories, and physics flew us to the Moon.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:46 AM
The word "mass" is being thrown about. However, what is being discussed, from what I have read, is in actuality both passive and active gravitational mass along with inertial mass.

Mass is a term that has several definitions and it should not be confused with the term "mass" when discussing "matter".

Compression of a material doesn't change it's mass. A pound of feathers compressed to half it's size is still a pound of feathers, only it's volume in a defined space is smaller and it will still have the same inertial mass.

I see some blending taking place.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:01 AM

Compression of a material doesn't change it's mass. A pound of feathers compressed to half it's size is still a pound of feathers, only it's volume in a defined space is smaller and it will still have the same inertial mass.

That is correct and I never said or implied otherwise. The compression was simply to make room for more mass in the same volume of space (increasing the weight of the material in the space) which does not subject it to "more atmospheric pressure".

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Compression of a material doesn't change it's mass. A pound of feathers compressed to half it's size is still a pound of feathers, only it's volume in a defined space is smaller and it will still have the same inertial mass.

That is correct and I never said or implied otherwise. The compression was simply to make room for more mass in the same volume of space (increasing the weight of the material in the space) which does not subject it to "more atmospheric pressure".

How about the compression of mass in a black hole...(grin)...sorry...going a bit off topic.

In thinking about the original poster and what they postulated I have come to a conclusion, it may be wrong but none-the-less it is what I have derived from their posts.

Take any planetary body and bore a hole through the center. Insert a tube through the bore, cap both ends and evacuate the atmosphere to an absolute vacuum. Have I got this correct so far?

Now, in comparison, take a deep mine shaft of say 2,000 meters. Drop that 10Kg mass. Does it fall? Yes. Now the argument that the OP will make is that there is a mass, the earth, at the bottom of the shaft and this is the attraction of mass. However, in the example, there is no mass at the center of the tube to attract the 10 Kg mass.

Am I understanding the original intent of the poster correctly?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:00 AM

How about the compression of mass in a black hole...(grin)...sorry...going a bit off topic.

Still does not change its mass. A black hole has the same mass as the star that produced it.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:58 AM

How about the compression of mass in a black hole...(grin)...sorry...going a bit off topic.

You're referring to an increase in density which is on topic as that seems to be OP's goal in this thread.

Remember, I just gave an extremely simple example for OP to consider. Do you disagree?

Now, in comparison, take a deep mine shaft of say 2,000 meters. Drop that 10Kg mass. Does it fall? Yes. Now the argument that the OP will make is that there is a mass, the earth, at the bottom of the shaft and this is the attraction of mass.

No, I think OP's assertion is that in this scenario it is atmospheric pressure that would cause that 10Kg to fall.

Originally posted by spy66

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 Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by renegadeloser

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

A force is not, in fact, defined as something which causes a change in momentum. A force is defined as something which causes a change in velocity (velocity has direction, momentum does not). The lights direction has changed, thus it's velocity has changed. Therefore, from our perspective, gravity is a force. (A 4 or 5 dimensional being that exists outside our "space" would not perceive it that way. But we are not that, we are 3 dimensional beings within our "space, thus we perceive it as a force)

Although I am not the one who presented the definition of what a FORCE is defined as...in the case of Gravity...a Photon that is traveling along the Space/Time Curvature created by a Black Hole...is NOT changing that Photons velocity. Rather the Photon is remaining constant in it's velocity and the change of direction of travel is not really a change of action of the Photon but rather a change of the Geometry of the surrounding Space/Time.

This is the reasoning behind showing that GRAVITY is not a true Force...it is the EFFECT CAUSED BY THE ALTERATION OF THE SPACE/TIME GEOMETRY and this alteration is caused by any amount of Mass but is easily shown to us as an EFFECT when we look at what happens to both Matter and Energy once captured by a large celestial body or this Celestial Bodies Gravitational EFFECT. Split Infinity

new topics

top topics

6