Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-08, 03:54 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: So far in my comments I have taken the density as a constant. Of course if the density is much less than another planet with the same mass then its radius will be bigger and the surface gravity will then be less. Are you making this stuff up as you go along. You quite clearly stated density had NOTHING to do with gravity; marengo wrote: Density has nothing to do with gravity marengo wrote: Volume (and hence density neither) has nothing to do with gravity.
'13-12-08, 11:52 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: marengo wrote: So far in my comments I have taken the density as a constant. Of course if the density is much less than another planet with the same mass then its radius will be bigger and the surface gravity will then be less. Are you making this stuff up as you go along. You quite clearly stated density had NOTHING to do with gravity; I wrote this post in a hurry. My previous comments took into account any density. I am getting a bit fed up with your lack of effort either to calculate or even to think. With the formula acc = GM/r^2 you can calculate the surface acceleration for any planet. Why do you not do it? Density does have nothing to do with gravity. The fact that the surface of a body stops you from getting closer to the effective point source is merely a practical limitation. It does not take much thought to realise that.
'13-12-08, 11:58 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: Right. And that should be the first indication that it is BS. The fact that the effects still haven't been observed is the second. Relativity is just a way of taking something simple and making it sound really, really complicated. If you want to understand Einstein, study Zeno of Elea first, and all will be revealed. I have already and with great patience demonstrated that Relativity effects do occur. The Large Hadron Collider increases the mass of a proton several thousand times. Why do you people want to ignore solid evidence. Gravitational redshift can be and is fully checked by Earth based experiments. The side effect of grav. light bending is therefore also proven.
'13-12-08, 11:59 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity nick c wrote: Eddington's observations are totally inadequate as an explanation of any effect. His measurements go beyond the limits of his instrumentation and are pretty much useless for any scientific conclusions, least of all proving a deflection of light due to a gravitational field. Please see my previous post.
'13-12-08, 12:03 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: Naw, you see that's what I wonder. If you accept the gravity derived mass and density of moons then some of the Moons of Saturn are less dense than water. But that is counter to the conventional explanation for planet and moon creation. Rocks came together and became molten, heavy stuff sinks to the core, light stuff floats to top. Yet nearly all moons have distinctly rocky surfaces, their interiors should be rocks, heavier roc OK, So now you accept Newton's law of gravity. It seriously concerns me that you were prepared to ditch Newtons law in favour of some mysterious idea as to how moons are created. Where is your judgement?
'13-12-08, 12:08 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity GaryN wrote: I just received my copy of "Cosmic Machinery in an Electro-Magnetic Universe", by Capt. H.A.Staples, and though not exactly what I was expecting, in light of the announcement of the Van Allen belt double-layers, his ideas may be closer to the truth than he could have suspected. I have only had a quick skim, but he proposes an EM interaction between the Sun, Earth, and Moon for the nature of the tides on Earth. He has done some very thorough studies, and the book contains many tide readings from around the world, as well as going into some complex orbital science that I'm not familiar with, and used rotating electric fields surrounding all three objects to show how the tides can be explained by the interaction of these fields. He certainly seems to know his science, so this is not some amateur publication. I'll post again if I find anything of interest relevant to this thread. I also have to keep in mind Teslas words, that we should treat the Earth, and probably all planets and moons with solid surfaces, as a conducting sphere. Hollow, multi-layered too perhaps, meaning not as massive as now believed. That way I could perhaps allow for mechanisms such as gravitational capture, which using the Newtonian model are extremely unlikely, but if gravity was to be an EM force, not so unlikely. Why complicate nature. Occam does not agree with it. Electric forces operate between charges. Positive and negative electric fields cancel each other. Gravity is not cancelled and is generated by both positive and negative masses. The point of physics is to simplify our understanding of nature, not to do the opposite.
'13-12-08, 12:17 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT Light bending, grav. redshift, Newton's Law all stem from that. See my paper on Gravity for the full explanation. As the grav potential changes near mass then so does the speed of light. It is about 4 parts per million slower at the Sun's surface. Remember, the speed of light is the propagation velocity of the Aether. So mass changes the local prop. velocity. The question is how?
'13-12-08, 13:25 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Why complicate nature. Occam does not agree with it. Electric forces operate between charges. Positive and negative electric fields cancel each other. Gravity is not cancelled and is generated by both positive and negative masses. The point of physics is to simplify our understanding of nature, not to do the opposite. Oh, OK. Newtonian mechanics was simple. But gravity-based astronomy was found to be so full of anomalies that a whole new model was required, so the simplification was GR? And then things got way simpler when you realized that if your theory predicts something, you don't really have to worry about whether or not the effects can be measured? Yep, having to get theories to match measurements would just make things complicated, and Occam's Razor can take care of that for you! I heard similar logic on the BAUT forum after I demonstrated that Feynman's like-likes-like principle can explain a mutual attraction between Debye cells that can cause a dusty plasma to collapse. The response was that they already had something that could do that: CDM, and attempting an alternate explanation using actual physical forces would be needlessly complicating the issue — hence my work didn't pass Occam's Razor! In other words, if you've already given up trying to solve a problem with rigorous physics, and you've already resorted to non-physical numeric modeling to absorb all of the discrepancies, who needs real solutions anymore??? That's like an accountant saying, "Who needs to try to find out why the books don't balance? If you have too much on the black side, you just insert a line item for owner's equity. If you have too much on the red side, it's a line item for owner's liability. And Occam taught us that the easiest solution is the best, right?" Well, yes, but he wasn't talking about just fudging it! Let me ask you a question. Given that answers cost $1, and correct answers cost $2, which is better?
'13-12-08, 15:53 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity OK, So now you accept Newton's law of gravity. It seriously concerns me that you were prepared to ditch Newtons law Ok so now you don't contradict yourself. It seriously concerns me that you are prepared to contradict yourself. ...in favour of some mysterious idea as to how moons are created. Where is your judgement? I notice you forgot to write down the evidence based solution to creation and gravity. Until you do, I'll be searching for new ideas. As far as I know we haven't yet found the hard evidence for either, so I have to hypothesize new physics. The biggest gap in our understanding of everything is the interior of stars planets moons, so by deduction that's where the answers should be. That's my judgement. If you think you have better please say.
'13-12-08, 16:47 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk, we need to talk! I don't read every post, so when someone, let's say meemoe, quotes someone, who's post is further up the page than last post, we need to know who is being quoted. EXAMPLES: marengo: -in favour of some mysterious idea as to how moons are created. Where is your judgement? meemoe: The biggest gap in our understanding of everything is the interior of stars planets moons, so by deduction that's where the answers should be thank you,
'13-12-08, 18:44 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Aardwolf wrote: marengo wrote: So far in my comments I have taken the density as a constant. Of course if the density is much less than another planet with the same mass then its radius will be bigger and the surface gravity will then be less. Are you making this stuff up as you go along. You quite clearly stated density had NOTHING to do with gravity; I wrote this post in a hurry. My previous comments took into account any density. I am getting a bit fed up with your lack of effort either to calculate or even to think. With the formula acc = GM/r^2 you can calculate the surface acceleration for any planet. Why do you not do it? Density does have nothing to do with gravity. The fact that the surface of a body stops you from getting closer to the effective point source is merely a practical limitation. It does not take much thought to realise that. You're still stuck on "point source" which I explained is a fallacious phrase and idea. A point cannot exert any influence of gravity as it is massless and dimensionless. Objects are not attracted to dimensionless points. It is further false when considering that there is no gravity at the alleged core, absolute center, of any planet. You're also wrong about density having "nothing" to do with gravity. You are ignoring the SELENE article I posted, ie, that the Moon's gravity varies across its surface quite dramatically due to density/mass concentration variations. You can't say that density has no tie-in whatsoever to gravity.
'13-12-09, 02:25 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: With the formula acc = GM/r^2 you can calculate the surface acceleration for any planet. How do you determine M?
'13-12-09, 02:49 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity ardwolf wrote: You're also wrong about density having "nothing" to do with gravity. Erm, well the topic of the thread is asserting gravity theory is wrong, so we're allowed to challenge ideas on gravity on this thread. Conventionally though gravity force is F = V1 d 1 V2 d2 / r2 where V and d are Volume and density
'13-12-09, 02:54 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: ardwolf wrote: You're also wrong about density having "nothing" to do with gravity. Erm, well the topic of the thread is asserting gravity theory is wrong, so we're allowed to challenge ideas on gravity on this thread. Conventionally though gravity force is F = V1 d 1 V2 d2 / r2 where V and d are Volume and density Ok. But SELENE has evidence of a relationship between an increase in gravitation over areas of greater density on the Moon. That is the whole reason why I posted the article as it is the most recent Lunar mission to my knowledge. Therefore there is a correlation. Density, as you can see, appears throughout that traditional mathematical equation. But moreover, I'm refuting marengo's insistence of continuing to describe the force of gravity as originating from a de facto "point source." Such a notion is more than likely untrue as the source of the gravitation is not reduced to single point of existence because it geometrically cannot be. It cannot theoretically nor physically.
'13-12-09, 03:10 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Yeah, I've read a bit on the selene mission. There a crucial thing missing from the articles though. Quantification. It's a given that gravity varies slightly over a relief map with different density rocks. So nothing new there. But did the results match the conventional model of the moon? Space science is so use to its theory being falsified by new measurements that they sometimes don't bother to tell anyone when it happens. Using radio sonar to detect the rocks just down to a km or 2 might already be enough to cause results to diverge from a conventional model if gravity theory is wrong. But its only scratching the surface. We need to get 50km deep inside a moon or planet. Then we'll see some new stuff.