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.

 

I don't buy this "theory" of gravity.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



This points out the most obvious hole in your theory that electromagnetism explains all forces ...


Unless gravity is an affect of magnetism.


The mathematics of the four forces is not some abstract fantasy but comes from observed and measured physics. We can apply the mathematics to understand exactly the magnitude and direction of the forces and can confirm that those forces always act as calculated.


Sure, we are able to observe the actions that we call force, but our ability to calculate what any force will do is limited by our ability to observe the interactions we have labeled as force.

We have absolutely no idea of the nature of these forces.

There is a missing first law of physics.

The equation needs a major upgrade.




posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


First off - Show me the scientific journals that state nuclear and gravity have been proven. I would like to read them. I can't find any on the Internet or at the library.

1. I never said electro force explains everything. But I am using its as a point for comparison. You should have recognized that so there is no hole. With that said I do wish science would peruse that avenue to clear the air once and for all.

According to the gravity math the glass should be attracted to the larger mass object. However this is not true in the real world. No matter what you do the glass will always fall down only. Even if a larger mass object is closer and off to the side of the glass, the glass will pass it and fall down. To explain this action science needs another force unrelated to gravity. Have you ever ask yourself why this is?

Yet I can over come earth gravity by dropping a nail and have it go sideways to a magnet. But this should be impossible according the math. After all electromagnetic force is the weakest of all.

Here we have predictable electromagnetic fact working as it is expected. But poor gravity needs help from the absence of another force to explain why it ignored a larger mass object.

Gravity can not explain why lighting can escape the gravity of the earth as it lunges toward the clouds. But electromagnetic force explains it handily.

Gravity can not explain cold fusion but cold fusion is not possible without electromagnet waves.

Glass does support the magnets field. If you put a nail on the other side of the glass it will stick to the glass. Just like a copper wire supports current flow, the glass carries the field through it. But you have given a poor example because glass is used as conductor in some applications and a resistance in others. Glass is a semiconductor.

2. False - electromagnetic math is straight forward and simple in comparison. And unlike gravity and nuclear, I can directly apply the math for a direct result. I can apply electromagnetic math directly to light a bulb. Not only that, I can predictably control how bright I want the light and even reverse the flow. And I can use readily available materials to do it.

I can work out the gravity force math but there is no way to apply it in the real world. The best that can be done is to drop an object and let it fall. The fall can only be controlled outside of gravitational theory by changing the air resistance once the object is let go. I don't see resistance in the equations. Nor can conditions be set up to reverse the falling object.

If there is a way I can follow through the gravity experiment like the electromagnetic experiment, now would be the time to come clean and show it. And wouldn't it be the right thing to do scientifically?

If gravity is understood as well as electromagnetic force then why can't this be done? Let's see that mysterious math in action.

3. Interesting. Well then why don't they use nuclear or gravitational forces to dislodge particles? It is strange that electromagnetic force is used to control atomic accelerators especially when it is weaker than nuclear force.
Something is not right - the math says so.

Now what would be an honest answer to that ironic twist? Could it be that electromagnetic force is better understood so it is usable? Could it be it is the only force that is proven to be a controllable force?

4. I understand - you discard the scientific method in favor of math.

5. If all have been falsified, then they are not fact. Now please show proof electromagnetic force has been falsified. If true, how is it you use it every day. How is it so predictable. How is a TV possible? What about that cell phone?

6. What I believe is unimportant. If you can deny your daily usage of proven electromagnetic devises that is quite an oxymoron.

If we didn't have the understanding of electromagnetic force as you contend, then we would still be using candles. If we knew as much about nuclear and gravitational forces as you contend, why aren't we using them?

Of all the forces known whether fictitious or real, electromagnetic force is the only one we have been able to harness in everyday life. The proof is in the thousands of applications and uses.

Is it the only force, probably not.

But the point is this. Work in electromagnetism started at about the same time as the work on gravity. Scientists like Faraday, Henry, and Ohm set a solid foundation so that when others came along the they continued their work. With a solid foundation they all knew they where barking up the right tree. When guys like Tesla and Edison came along they just built bigger and created a power source to put it all together. Once the power source was solved it became an electric world.

This worked out because their theories were based on sound scientific principle. They got the physics right first, then applied the math. Now for over 200+ years it has all been the same and no one can argue about the practical applications and consistency of those scientists. Their stuff works to a tee.

Had Newton and his followers followed the same path, we would know all about and have harnessed gravity. But after 300 years gravity is still a mystery. What when wrong? Did it ever occur to scientists to take a look at the accomplishments and progression of the Faradays and Henries? Did it ever occur to them they are not getting solid results. Did it ever occur to them after spending lifetimes and billions of dollars that just maybe gravity is not what they think it is? Did it ever occur to them that their theories are not working out.

You bet I question gravity. Gravity begot red shift (now in question as wrong), black holes, time and space distortions, and it goes on and on. None of this has ever been observed. It all exist on paper, mathematical formulas, and in the heads of scientists who peruse this.

Ever since Einstein, science has produced nothing with any practical applications. Half the scientists didn't even understand what Einstein was talking about. Einstein predicted that as an object approaches the speed of light it grows larger and would have infinite mass at the speed of light.

Did it ever dawn on Einstein that a photon (which is electromagnetic) is a physical particle and physical object which then logically should have infinite mass since it travels at the speed of light. Shouldn't the night sky be white with light? No "educated" scientist dared to question this? It defies what is observable and insults common sense.

Everything we have accomplished has been due to the work in electromagnetism because if you take away the electricity, you have nothing.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
"Push" theory is my take on gravity. Kind of a Push me Pull you effect.
Space contains the elements necessary to keep things apart( sun&earth etc..)
also is what holds it all together and pushes us back to earth when we jump up.
Maybe that is what all that dark matter is, or maybe it is something entirely to forign
for our under-developed grey matter to fathom.

I am also of the mind that man did not evolve from ape but quite the reverse.
edit on 22-7-2013 by azureskys because: add on



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 


That ape evolved from Man?
Oh and no one is saying we evolved from Ape, we are part of the Great Ape family and we all evolved from a common ancestor.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I appreciate that it is your opinion.
However it is not mine not mine
I believe that man existed as a lone species and ape is a mutation of the human genus.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by joer4x4
reply to post by chr0naut
 


According to the gravity math the glass should be attracted to the larger mass object. However this is not true in the real world. No matter what you do the glass will always fall down only. Even if a larger mass object is closer and off to the side of the glass, the glass will pass it and fall down.


If we assume that the piece of glass weighs 1 kg, the 'large mass' weighs 100,000 kg (100 Tonnes) and they are 1 meter apart, then the gravitational force between them is given by the equation:

Force = Gravitational Constant * Mass 1 * Mass 2 / distance between the centers of the masses ^2

(Note: the gravitational constant = 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)

So, the force (in Newtons) = 6.67384 × 10-11 * 1 * 100,000 / 1^2
= 0.0000000000667384 * 100,000 / 1
= 0.00000667384 Newtons

This is TINY especially when compared with the force between the glass and a close and much larger mass, the Earth, which weighs in at a mass of 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg and is 6,371 km from the Glass (at sea level) giving an attractive force of 9.8 Newtons.

Which do you believe is going to have the greatest effect on the glass? The attraction to the 100 T mass at less than a ten thousandth of a Newton or the attraction to the Earth at 9.8 Newtons?

It is your avoidance of the mathematics which shows how easily you are led astray by the inadequacy of your experience and knowledge.

edit on 23/7/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by joer4x4
reply to post by chr0naut
 


According to the gravity math the glass should be attracted to the larger mass object. However this is not true in the real world. No matter what you do the glass will always fall down only. Even if a larger mass object is closer and off to the side of the glass, the glass will pass it and fall down.


If we assume that the piece of glass weighs 1 kg, the 'large mass' weighs 100,000 kg (100 Tonnes) and they are 1 meter apart, then the gravitational force between them is given by the equation:

Force = Gravitational Constant * Mass 1 * Mass 2 / distance between the centers of the masses ^2

(Note: the gravitational constant = 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)

So, the force (in Newtons) = 6.67384 × 10-11 * 1 * 100,000 / 1^2
= 0.0000000000667384 * 100,000 / 1
= 0.00000667384 Newtons

This is TINY especially when compared with the force between the glass and a close and much larger mass, the Earth, which weighs in at a mass of 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg and is 6,371 km from the Glass (at sea level) giving an attractive force of 9.8 Newtons.

Which do you believe is going to have the greatest effect on the glass? The attraction to the 100 T mass at less than a ten thousandth of a Newton or the attraction to the Earth at 9.8 Newtons?

It is your avoidance of the mathematics which shows how easily you are led astray by the inadequacy of your experience and knowledge.

edit on 23/7/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


I would expect it to fall down. No matter where the greatest mass is it can only fall down.

Your math is correct but it lies to you. Why? The glass or any other object will always fall down any weight, size, or distance. Now one has ever successfully performed a gravity experiment in space, an accelerator, or anywhere to show gravity can pull an object in any other direction but down.

In the example in my last post you need a Mass 3 in your calculation and the greater mass may be in any direction but down.

If the theory and the math were correct it should work in any direction. It should be noted that electromagnetic force works in all directions on earth, space, or a vacuum.. Here the math is correct and can be physically duplicated.

Stop using the excuse that I am not knowledgeable, unfamiliar with math, and inexperienced.

Prove your math in the real world. Let's observe the phenomena. It is the scientific way to do things.
If you know of an experiment - please let me know.


edit on 24-7-2013 by joer4x4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by joer4x4

I would expect it to fall down. No matter where the greatest mass is it can only fall down.

Your math is correct but it lies to you. Why? The glass or any other object will always fall down any weight, size, or distance. Now one has ever successfully performed a gravity experiment in space, an accelerator, or anywhere to show gravity can pull an object in any other direction but down.

In the example in my last post you need a Mass 3 in your calculation and the greater mass may be in any direction but down.

If the theory and the math were correct it should work in any direction. It should be noted that electromagnetic force works in all directions on earth, space, or a vacuum.. Here the math is correct and can be physically duplicated.

Stop using the excuse that I am not knowledgeable, unfamiliar with math, and inexperienced.

Prove your math in the real world. Let's observe the phenomena. It is the scientific way to do things.
If you know of an experiment - please let me know.



Gravitation works in any direction.

Comets and meteors have fallen in to the Sun. We have watched them do it through telescopes.

From our viewpoint here on the surface of the Earth, some of them will have have fallen up.

Up and down are relative to the observer (which would be you). The "down" that you describe on Earth is different than the "down" you would describe on another planet or even on another part of the Earth.

Similarly your "down" points in the direction of the center of the Earth. On the other side of the Earth, their "down" still point towards the center of the Earth, but it is the opposite direction to your "down".


edit on 25/7/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join