Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[rlortie]

I am what I am and that is all that I am. And Olive Oyle makes for a fine deterrent. A bit of spinach and fender skirts makes for good soothing of the soul.

And yes I am here, I do not know if my response to Dave was what he expected, but i feel it was a fair deal. It is not often I am told to "STFU" on a thread of my making.

My posture now, leading back into my own thread, which I so diligently abandoned is to start by laying down a few corner stones from which to build a fortress worthy of my opponent attacks.

I prefer to keep it earth bound and let planets rockets and satellites go about their business in their own worthy and allotted topics.

Ralph

[Grimer]

From the planet.
Further down:

"This explanation might seem to violate the conservation of energy and momentum, but the spacecraft's effects on the planet have not been considered. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, though the planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in its speed negligibly small. These effects on the planet are so slight (because planets are so much more massive than spacecraft) that they can be ignored in the calculation."
...

I believe that when a gravity mill is finally built it will be evident that the angular momentum of the mill is balance by an opposite and equal angular momentum of the planet. This angular momentum transfer will come about by the incorporation of a one-way clutch into the mill design.

[eccentrically1]

it will be evident that the angular momentum of the mill is balance by an opposite and equal angular momentum of the planet.

That's why gravity mills are imaginary. Balance is the reality.

, then the first mover must be self-moved."

It was, a long time ago, Ralph. Stars have everything to do with anything that moves. We are stardust. Their births and deaths determine all life and death, movement. The earth is orbiting the sun, constantly falling into it. It shapes our motion. The entire solar system moves because the sun is being pulled by the Milky Way, which is being pulled by the galaxy cluster...
until, theoretical physics says, there is a background dark energy that accelerates the universe against the inexorable tug of gravity. Talk about a first mover!

Gravity might be like light, part of the EM spectrum, but the waves are too long to detect and the particles are too small to detect. Or it could be like Einstein thought and is just a property of spacetime that can only be observed indirectly, a phenomenon if you prefer.

Here is a simulated black hole. Doesn't it remind you of a big eye?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lkyway.jpg

[rlortie]

Grimmer wrote:

I believe that when a gravity mill is finally built it will be evident that the angular momentum of the mill is balance by an opposite and equal angular momentum of the planet. This angular momentum transfer will come about by the incorporation of a one-way clutch into the mill design.

Agreeing to the connection of what goes on here (on earth) is not UN-related to space time, theory and bouncing satellite off planets. I prefer discussing equal angular momentum and momentum transfer within and about a balanced UN-symmetric drum set upon an horizontal axle that freely rotates about its axis with low friction and wind-age.

The design under build does not rely on angular momentum, but may be influenced by such properties due to the draw or pull of centrifugal force at a tangent to the axis.

There is no need of a one-way clutch, and/or related mechanisms. The machine will be equipped with and outside mounted lever, like that used in steam locomotives referred to as a "Johnson Bar"... It will control direction of rotation and desired torque output from zero up to the machines capability.

Remember, this is all in regards to a fluid operated device where there is no solid weights, other than on a molecular scale. Newtonian fluids which seek their own level and require no other outside force other than gravity to achieve it.

It is I, the builder who must first balance the machine on a four cornered platform showing that the machine is balanced parallel to the axis when empty. Upon adding fluid it will become obvious and apparent that the device becomes heavier on one side than the other providing the Johnson bar is turned to the right or left of vertical center.

Members complain of my lack of math, so here are some technical statistics of my design. The maximum weight or torque will be applied (gained) at three o'clock or at +90 degrees providing we start with-359.999 & +.001 on each side of twelve o'clock vertical. At +180 the + changes to -. Back torque starts past +180 plus when the built up inertia is spent for that 13.8 degree of revolution.

The machine is not symmetrical in build, making for long equations. Rotation will bring in progression a maximum torque reading every 13.846153846153846153846153846154 degrees. I can live with a simple 13.8... Sarcasm is not intended in giving such a lengthy number, it is only to show the futility of seeking and finding a keel point.

The machine design calls for a semi-hermetical sealed unit making up what I refer to as the engine "block" similar to an internal combustion engine.

Outside gravity is its only energy force playing on liquids seeking but never finding stabilization. As such I consider it to be a machine of Ectropic properties, yet unknown is the possibility of it being exothermic, we all know and agree, work creates heat.

Enough for now, To beat the Valentine rush to a good restaurant, I am taking my wife out for dinner and maybe a dance or two.

Ralph

[primemignonite]

* * * * *

"Or it could be like Einstein thought and is just a property of spacetime that can only be observed indirectly, a phenomenon if you prefer." - eccentrically1

* * * * *

"only observed"

"a phenomenon"

To me, this suggestion as to the possible reality of the situation, sounds awfully mystical, and like a manufactured-to-comfort cop out.

The fact is that the high priests of The Smart Set of Physics don't know what the Hell or Heaven, gravity is. Where is the supposed graviton?

Amongst various of other reasons as well, this example instant is why I continue to suggest that the observed phenomenon may come from without our own realm of existence.

Is the notion that it might be SO very terrifying, that none could even address it? Thus far no one here has. Perhaps it is just too silly a one to take seriously?

To-date, this would seem to be the case; one can hope if not pray, for improvements to it.

We await news . . .

James

[eccentrically1]

Amongst various of other reasons as well, this example instant is why I continue to suggest that the observed phenomenon may come from without our own realm of existence.

I saw a program on public television not long ago, Brian Green was the host. One theory he talked about was that gravity is a force from another "place".
It still wouldn't change the observation if we verify that somehow.
The best we can do for now is predict what happens near black holes until we can observe them with better equipment.

[rlortie]

If you will excuse me, and bear with me, I have some frustration that needs venting.

Gravity is the attraction of masses not unlike magnetism, only without the identifiable properties and source seen in magnetism.

A two ounce fishing sinkers feels like two ounces as there is two ounces worth of gravitational attraction between it and earth.

I can teach a man how to lift a six inch thick slab of concrete of any dimension with a pneumatic caulking gun, mortar slurry and 10 psi of air pressure. I can show him how to lift his sunken four inch thick sidewalk with a hand held, hand activated caulking gun while he is standing on it.

If gravity is made up of some sub-atom based particle such as "gravitons", or any such related particle, do you not think that the supply would eventually exhaust itself?

A black hole as described, is a mass so dense that not only will it attract a 2 ounce lead weight but strong enough to effect particles we call "photons" items so light they are usually regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass and no electric charge.

Gravity is not an outside force nor does it come from without our realm of existence, it is our existence and we must except it "as-is",,,,

Thank you for letting me "vent"

Ralph

[Tarsier79]

Ralph

Isnt others unacceptance of the source of gravity similar to your own of the cunservation of gravity? "Hello pot, this is the kettle calling"

[Grimer]

If you will excuse me, and bear with me, I have some frustration that needs venting.

Gravity is the attraction of masses ...

No it isn't - and Newton thought the idea of attraction was daft. I don't have his quote to hand but it has been given more than once in these forums.

I view gravity as a vertical wind blowing steadily down. I could be wrong but I don't think so (to quote Mr Monk).

Edit: Found it -

"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.

This seemed unacceptable on two counts.

In the first place, it seemed to be a form of action at a distance.

Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.� (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it'".

[primemignonite]

[This discussion is picking-up!]

Excellent, that quote of maitre Newton's. Thanks much for introducing it to our notice, Grimer.

Of course, naturally, the part that stood-out to this writer was the very most delicious to him:

". . . So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it."

Precisely, and forever so it shall, I suspect.

The proposition that it - gravity - might be solely a result of WILL as manifesting, is just custom-crafted to drive the more aware, terminal deniers of the Smart Set class (upon final realization of the palpable horror that it constitutes to them, they and their twisted, puzzle house equated paradigm) directly into the loony bin or better, right out the window!

The concrete beckons to ye!

["Now, now, James . . ."]

James

[ovyyus]

". . . So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it."

Precisely, and forever so it shall, I suspect.

The old 'instantaneous gravity' corpse just won't stay buried, someone keeps digging it up for another poke with a stick. Let's bury it again, poor thing :D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

The speed of physical changes in a gravitational or electromagnetic field should not be confused with "changes" in the behavior of static fields that are due to pure observer-effects. These changes in direction of a static field, because of relativistic considerations, are the same for an observer when a distant charge is moving, as when an observer (instead) decides to move with respect to a distant charge. Thus, constant motion of an observer with regard to a static charge and its extended static field (either a gravitational or electric field) does not change the field. For static fields, such as the electrostatic field connected with electric charge, or the gravitational field connected to a massive object, the field extends to infinity, and does not propagate. Motion of an observer does not cause the direction of such a field to change, and by symmetrical considerations, changing the observer frame so that the charge appears to be moving at a constant rate, also does not cause the direction of its field to change, but requires that it continue to "point" in the direction of the charge, at all distances from the charge.

The consequence of this is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge, over a distance to an observer. This remains true if the charged bodies and their observers are made to "move" (or not), by simply changing reference frames. This fact sometimes causes confusion about the "speed" of such static fields, which sometimes appear to change infinitely quickly when the changes in the field are mere artifacts of the motion of the observer, or of observation.

[Grimer]

The mistake relativity makes it to treat gravity as though it is instantaneous but if it's just very fast then relativity is not needed.

Interestingly enough I am re-reading the Sleepwalkers by Koestler and am up to the life of Kepler. He had a similar problem in relation to the distance of the stars. He had measured the distance to the planets by aberration and thought he could measure the distance to the stars in the same way. He found he couldn't. Now under those circumstances it is easy to imagine they are infinitely far away but the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves, more importantly our instruments.

In science we are constantly confronted by orders of magnitude which makes us gasp in astonishment.
The smallness of the nucleus compared to the atom for example. Why should the speed of light and the speed of gravity be any different.

I think relativity is a cop-out. Science got to the point where it was too proud to admit its instruments had run out of steam so it said let's say the speed of gravity is infinite then we can explain it with general relativity, a non-physical theory if ever there was one - a surrender of physics to the mathematicians.

[ovyyus]

The mistake relativity makes...
I think relativity is a cop-out...

You must have a deep understanding of relativity to dismiss it so simply. I might ask what your actual expertise is on the subject if I thought you weren't just trolling again :P

[rasselasss]

posted wrong thread

[rasselasss]

deleted