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.

page: 25
6
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

again... the "effect" is a FORCE, which IS a push or a pull....

The EFFECT is the CHANGING OF SPACE/TIME GEOMETRY...as our concepts of 3 or 4 Dimensional Distance and Time are changed. We perceive it as a Force...but it is not. Split Infinity

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

again... the "effect" is a FORCE, which IS a push or a pull....

The EFFECT is the CHANGING OF SPACE/TIME GEOMETRY...as our concepts of 3 or 4 Dimensional Distance and Time are changed. We perceive it as a Force...but it is not. Split Infinity

How does this limit my vertical leaping ability?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:18 PM

LOL! If you are Cartman then Zero is still Zero! LOL!

Split Infinity....p.s....OBEY MAH ATORITAY! LOL!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

LOL! If you are Cartman then Zero is still Zero! LOL!

Split Infinity....p.s....OBEY MAH ATORITAY! LOL!

OK but why? How does spacetimegeometry cause this effect?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:13 PM

The Effect is the expression of One Dimensionality which is the actual Geometry of Space/Time. We perceive objects and distance and time 4 Dimensionally. The Universe we live in has at the very least 10 or 11 dimensional states. Still we see things in length, width, depth and time or in motion.

Any Large enough Celestial Body will Warp Space/Time to an extent that a perceivable change of direction is occurring in how Light is traveling near this Massive Gravity Well. The thing is it is not the Light that is changing direction but rather the Space/Time Geometry is changed thus Light appears to travel toward the Gravity Well as the Space/Time is curved toward that Gravity Well. Split Infinity

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:27 AM

Your posts are an expression of one dimensionality and they don't answer my question.

Slot car photons don't explain how gravity pulls me back down when I jump.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Your posts are an expression of one dimensionality and they don't answer my question.

Slot car photons don't explain how gravity pulls me back down when I jump.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Your posts are an expression of one dimensionality and they don't answer my question.

Slot car photons don't explain how gravity pulls me back down when I jump.

But it's the weekend. Besides, it's not my job to support your assertions.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:58 PM

Actually they were Einsteins. Split Infinity

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Actually they were Einsteins. Split Infinity

I have read GR and am intimately aware of what Einstein proposed. I do not think, at any stage, that he said "gravity was not a force".

Einstein explained the force of gravity in terms of the curvature of space-time, which changed the angular velocity of the path of travel of matter (and EM energy). This coupled with the Special Relativity concept of reference frames, explained the apparent attraction of objects that appeared to be motionless with respect to the observer. From reference frames other than the observer's, the objects would be in motion.

You appear to have confused the force of gravity with the explanation as to why it arises.

edit on 3/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by spy66

This is not a free fall experiment. The 10kg mass was not dropped it was just placed inside the vacuum tunnel.

The 10 kg mass doesn't have any mass underneath it self. Because the vacuum tunnel goes through the center of earth and out on the other end. Earth is isolated from the vacuum by the walls of the tunnel.

What some people in here don't understand is the difference between a closed system and a open system. This experiment can not be looked upon as if it was a open system.

If the mass should sink by it self. The vacuum inside the tunnel must gain weight towards the center. But it doesn't. It is vacuum all the way to the other end. How would the mass know which way to sink? When there is equal pressure in both ends? The mass would not know where it should sink.

When you have hold of something and release it, and it falls due to gravity, this is the very definition of dropping the object. An object in a vacuum that is affected by gravity, and that is released, falls. It was, therefore, dropped.

The mass doesn't "sink" due to gravity, the more normal way of describing the movement is to say it falls due to gravity. Sinking implies buoyancy. In a vacuum there is nothing to buoy up anything.

Similarly, a vacuum is an absence of matter. Matter has mass and a vacuum has none. A vacuum, therefore has no weight (weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity) at all, it does not get heavier in the center like a column of air. Also, since it has no weight, there is nothing to give a vacuum any pressure. It has no pressure at either end, or in the middle. A vacuum = no pressure.

The 10kg mass does not need to "know" anything to fall. It follows the shortest path through space-time with all energy conserved.

edit on 30/10/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

If you were in a spaceship and the only thing existing in the universe,, everything else was pure vacuum,,, and you released a 10 kg mass, would it fall down,, all the way down,, forever?

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:03 PM

We can go over this again and again but I believe that the word FORCE is used only as a way for people to be able to at the very least have an association for the description of Gravity. As I have said before...a FORCE cannot cause or is Space/Time Curvature or can any Force have an effect such as the one Gravity has and example of this effect is Photons traveling along the Curvature of Space/Time.

Split Infinity

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

We can go over this again and again but I believe that the word FORCE is used only as a way for people to be able to at the very least have an association for the description of Gravity. As I have said before...a FORCE cannot cause or is Space/Time Curvature or can any Force have an effect such as the one Gravity has and example of this effect is Photons traveling along the Curvature of Space/Time.

Split Infinity

You are still having difficulty.
What is YOUR definition of a "Force"? (for the umpteenth time without an answer)

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:08 PM

You have stated that gravity is caused by the atmosphere holding things down, mentioning that even in space and around the moon; there are small amounts of matter (which you have likened to "atmosphere").

The one hole in your theory is that the atmosphere is a fluid. It flows.

It does not sit as a rigid column above us, pushing us down, because it flows around us pushing from the sides and even from the gaps under our shoes. All around us, evenly.

Think of a spherical object (a ball) being held under water (a fluid).

If the ball is more dense than the water, it will travel to the bottom when released. This would be consistent with both your theory that the column of water above it was pushing it down (but not if the ball was at the surface where there is no water above it) and also with the theory that an invisible force (Gravity) was pulling it down.

However, in the case of a ball that is less dense than the water, when released, it floats, moving upward. This is because the more dense and fluid water has flowed around it and displaced the less dense ball. < This bit here is what negates your theory most strongly.

And before you go off on a tangent thinking that this doesn't happen in the atmosphere, like in water, the same thing does happen, where a less dense balloon is displaced by the more dense and fluid atmosphere and so the balloon rises.

In space, both the amount of matter and and the pressure it can apply are negligible (vanishingly small) and so your theory is insufficient to explain the gravitational forces that can hold enormous masses like stars and planets in orbit.

If the forces between stars and planets had to do with their temperature (as you stated elsewhere), then it holds that we could travel around in space, simply by using temperature gradients (we could control the attraction or repulsion to particular large objects by directionally controlling the temperature of our "ship"). Of course, this is pure nonsense because things simply do not work that way.

Please consider the situations above and see that they clearly disprove your theories of gravitation mediated by the atmosphere and of attraction/repulsion by temperature gradient.

edit on 3/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:13 PM

A Force is the interaction of any Quantum Particle Field with any other Quantum Particle Field and this includes the repulsion of any Matter which has it's electron orbiting field repulsed by any other Matters electron orbital field. As an object seems to strike another object the Nucleus of all the atoms in both objects never touch as the Negative Charged Electron Orbital Fields of both will not allow this to happen.

Gravity has nothing to do with this as their is no Quantum Particle Field interaction that will cause an object to fall.

Split Infinity

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

If you were in a spaceship and the only thing existing in the universe,, everything else was pure vacuum,,, and you released a 10 kg mass, would it fall down,, all the way down,, forever?

In that instance, it would fall "down" to the only other matter in the universe, that is, you and your spaceship.

However, due to the low mass of you + spaceship, this would take a VERY long time. It would not fall as fast as things do when they fall to Earth.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

We can go over this again and again but I believe that the word FORCE is used only as a way for people to be able to at the very least have an association for the description of Gravity. As I have said before...a FORCE cannot cause or is Space/Time Curvature or can any Force have an effect such as the one Gravity has and example of this effect is Photons traveling along the Curvature of Space/Time.

Split Infinity

Yeah, Einstein was SO 19th century!

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

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?

how come it only takes "some" helium atoms to lift 500 pounds or more of people away from the earths massive (!) gravity in say a hot air baloon?

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by SpearMint
Yes it would.

The answer is wrong. If i tell you that there is vacuume inside the tunnel all the way from the North pole to the South pole. How could mass travel to the South Pole? Or even to the core?

If the 10kg mass travels. That would mean the tunnel is not a vacuume from N to S. Correct?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Totally ignorant guy here, so forgive if this is stupid: Isn't the universe in a vacuum? If so, according to your premise, none of the planets or galaxies would be able to move. Right?

Ok since you bring this up.

I have a question for you. In this image you have three masses made of the same materials within a vacuume space, but they are different in size. My question is. Which mass attracks which? Or do they stay in the same positions?

The gravity equation constant is set up for two bodies only.

A computer could aproximate the motions of three bodies to any degree of precision by calculation reiteration.

The computer calculates the force on each single body towards the center of gravity of the other two, then moves everything according to the resultant forces a very small distance (the smaller the better) and then recalculates the force on each body toward the center of gravity of the other two.... repeat until all objects connect.

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:52 PM

each atracts the others.

the force of attraction is the same in both directions between any two bodies.

Although the force is the same on both bodies, since the weights (masses actually) are different, the two bodies will move at different speeds.

If a person and the Earth were inelastic, every motion of that person's body would move the Earth an infinitesimal amount.

top topics

6