Gravity Problem Solved

[common_sense_seeker]

I'm still waiting..

 

[phlogistician]

I'm still waiting..

I'm waiting for your maths.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

 

[CheskiChips]

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

No; it's being attracted in 3 vectors towards a single locations. And water for miles and miles of deep is allowed to move.

Let's say that the ocean is 4282m deep.
And it raises .1 m

$$\frac{.1}{4282} = Not Very Big$$

It changes virtually nothing compared to the amount of fluid liquid.

 

[phlogistician]

The question is in form of maths. When a value is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than a smaller calculation, it is not necessary to try to determine that value to any degree of accuracy. An understanding of the problem is. Do you accept that there is a discrepancy in that 150lb of seawater is raised against the Earth's gravity by around 0.1m, whilst that of 150lb of water on land (i.e. a person) is not raised at all?

Show us your maths. Stop obfuscating. Maths.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

Are you serious?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

Professor Brain Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is by it pulling on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter. The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE. It explains why it doesn't get windier on a high tide and why dust isn't affected by the moon's gravity for example.

I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.

BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.

This would be a good point to pull out John Baez's Crackpot Index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

#3: 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

#4: 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

#5: 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

#7: 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

...OBVIOUS.....NOTHING ELSE...

#15: 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

#22: 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

several times

#23: 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

(asteroid collision in television program)

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I'm proposing that there is dark matter at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (everyday) matter. It is much greater for dark matter. Therefore the weights of the Earth and the Moon are much higher than their current calculated values. A Core-Centered Theory of Gravity predicts a giant comet near-miss event around 40,000 years ago which resulted in the flexure of the lithosphere between Siberia and Australasia. The resultant land bridge across the Pacific ocean allowed the peopling of Australia and the American continent from the south west.

Give that a go.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

I'm proposing that there is dark matter at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (everyday) matter. It is much greater for dark matter. Therefore the weights of the Earth and the Moon are much higher than their current calculated values. A Core-Centered Theory of Gravity predicts a giant comet near-miss event around 40,000 years ago which resulted in the flexure of the lithosphere between Siberia and Australasia. The resultant land bridge across the Pacific ocean allowed the peopling of Australia and the American continent from the south west.

Give that a go.

While that may or may not be so, it's all well and good for an idea to be "conceptually right" but if the maths doesn't check out then clearly something is wrong.

Now, please show us the Maths.
Then your idea can be reviewed properly.

Also do you any evidence to back up your statements about the weight of the earth?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

My evidence for the maths is the Missing Mass Problem of cosmology. A theory of dark matter existing at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Stars would explain this perfectly.

References for the hypothesis that a temporary land bridge existed between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

 

[Read-Only]

My evidence for the maths is the Missing Mass Problem of cosmology. A theory of dark matter existing at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the Stars would explain this perfectly.

References for the hypothesis that a temporary land bridge existed between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

So.

Instead of showing the math, as requested, you choose to avoid it - are we to take that as an admission that you CANNOT do the math? I suppose so.

And in an attempt to divert our attention you send us to three references which, in fact, stand squarely against your silly idea!!!!

Wow! What a highly-intelligent fellow you are - NOT!!!!:bugeye:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Your just too negative to understand. The answer to your question is as plain as day. See above and think about it. Don't just react in a hysterical manner.

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

 

[Read-Only]

Your just too negative to understand. The answer to your question is as plain as day. See above and think about it. Don't just react in a hysterical manner.

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

Too negative? Iunderstand just fine and your own links serve to demolish your thinking.

Just like several others here, I'm too intelligent to fall for your nonsense PLUS the fact that we also realize you are a math moron. You've been given MULTIPLE chances to show it - yet you keep dodging which, by default, proves that you can't do it.

Oh, and I'm not hysterical in the slightest - except while laughing at your ignorance and inability, that is.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I'm a simulation modeller. I scored 98% for maths in my first year at university and was awarded joint award for Best Student for my discipline, out of around 300+ people.

When people keep saying "where's the maths", it just means that they're unable to perform lateral thinking. See "Would We Notice If DM Was At The Center Of The Earth" in the Astronomy section.

 

[Read-Only]

I'm a simulation modeller. I scored 98% for maths in my first year at university and was awarded joint award for Best Student for my discipline, out of around 300+ people.

Fine - then SHOW your work!

When people keep saying "where's the maths", it just means that they're unable to perform lateral thinking. See "Would We Notice If DM Was At The Center Of The Earth" in the Astronomy section.

My thinking is just fine, thank you very little. And evidently, my ability and that of several other here greatly exceeds your faulty reasoning ability.

Yes, I'll go read that thread.

Meanwhile, if your math abilities are so wonderful, SHOW IT!!!

 

[common_sense_seeker]

For people with lateral thinking only:

I have recently deduced that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. This would mean that previous calculations of their masses would all be underestimates. This makes it a possible solution for the Missing Mass Problem. The good way to justify this view would be it's ability to model galaxy behaviour. Something which I'm working on.

 

[Steve100]

For people with lateral thinking only:

I have recently deduced that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. This would mean that calculations of their masses would all be underestimates. This makes it a possible solution for the Missing Mass Problem. The only way to justify this view would be it's ability to model galaxy behaviour. Something which I'm working on.

All of our observations fit the current masses of the Earth, stars, and the moon.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I appreciate just how accurate the current model is. I have a knowledge about the actual mechanism of gravity. This gives me the edge in thinking about how the gravity of DM is different to that of ordinary matter. An obvious big difference is that DM gravity is highly directional. It is much higher in the ecliptic plane of a star compared to that of it's spin axis. This is the reason that most galaxy disc shapes are maintained over their lifetime of billions of years, in my opinion.

 

[Steve100]

I have a knowledge about the actual mechanism of gravity. This gives me the edge in thinking about how the gravity of DM is different to that of ordinary matter. An obvious big difference is that DM gravity is highly directional. It is much higher in the ecliptic plane of a star compared to that of it's spin axis. This is the reason that most galaxy disc shapes are maintained over their lifetime of billions of years, in my opinion.

Then please do explain these things.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

@common_sense_seeker

IMO, the key point of contention thus far is not actually related to your theory/ideas but the fact that at least up until now you have posted bits and pieces of your idea, links to things related to your idea, etc, but not the actual reasoning behind you theory or the mathematical basis for said theory.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if no evidence (or insufficient evidence) is provided then the claim is generally assumed to be false.

 

[Read-Only]

Oh, really???? Then that puts you FAR, FAR of every professional scientist on the face of the whole Earth!

Well... either that or the biggest CRACKPOT of all time.:bugeye:

(And I strongly suspect the latter.)