Gravity Problem Solved

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen a bit of talk involving the measure of Newtons. For those who don't know how much a Newton is in real life, it's about the same quantity as a cooking apple.
 
Yes, i do know what a Newton is. I work with it weekly.

I am referring to Weight, which is a measure of Mass multiplied by Gravitational Acceleration. Weight is measured as a force which is a vector, which depends on mass and gravity.

Don't patronize me please.
 
For instance, imagine you had a Newton measuring device, with a wire, and attatched to that wire was one cooking apple. The weight of force of the cooking apple accelerating down the way, is equivalent to one Newton.
 
phlogistician said:
Listen, you clearly don't understand why 'dark matter' is referred to as such, it is because the masses of the OBSERVED bodies, such as the earth, and stars, do not account for large scale gravitational phenomena.

If you put DM into the OBSERVED bodies, you need something else to explain large scale gravitation.

DO YOU GET THIS YET?
Click to expand...


You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it). Since the masses of all other bodies are based on this calculation, the calculated masses of galaxies are also overestimates. The true values would mean large scale gravity is consistant with observation.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it). Since the masses of all other bodies are based on this calculation, the calculated masses of galaxies are also overestimates. The true values would mean large scale gravity is consistant with observation.
Click to expand...

So what is the actual point of this?

It sounds like all you are going to do is change the mass of everything, then change the gravitational constant to fit it.
 
"What's the point"! How about a simple Theory Of Everything so that science can leap forward in helping solve humanities many problems and stop wasting time, loads of money and resources.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
"What's the point"! How about a simple Theory Of Everything so that science can leap forward in helping solve humanities many problems and stop wasting time, loads of money and resources.
Click to expand...

Even if we knew the Grand Unified Theory -- indeed if there even is one -- there is no confidence that we would prosper. Not a shred of evidence means that we could deduct very much from it, other than the most likely ending scenario of the universe, but it would be impossible to detail events progressively throughout the future: No theory could satisfy this, since everything in physics was just probability -- actualities are in fact rare.

So you see, there is no equation (grand or weak), that could ever satisfy the complexities of this universe.
 
Saxion said:
So you see, there is no equation (grand or weak), that could ever satisfy the complexities of this universe.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more on this point. I'm talking about a computer simulation for one thing, and the geometric knowledge of simplicity to enhance it. It won't be a silver bullet for humanity's problems for sure, but it will certainly lead to a new era of some sort.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
You're the one who is confused. Due to the evidence of the Hapgood mammoth data and the ocean tides I have concluded that the inner cores consist of matter which has a higher force of gravitational attraction than normal matter. Cavendish's assumption that the entire Earth is composed of baryonic matter has led to an overestimate of it's mass (think about it).
Click to expand...

Maths.
 
Anything against the mainstream is never going to be easy to prove. But I am getting closer to a professionally finished coherent theory.

BTW My theory of matter having a lower entropy at the center of celestial bodies would increase the effect of gravity gradients and tidal heating. It would account for the unusually high internal heat of Jupiter´s moon Io. At least one professional body has declared that their calculations show that the heat of Io´s interior must be a residue from a (supposed) previous orbit.

An interesting link is: http://mb-soft.com/public/io.html
 
Last edited:
Prediction and Proof for the Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity (CCTG):

The current standard model of the tides would predict that the tidal forces act evenly over the globe to give an even bulge of the Earth. My theory predicts that an additional central bulge should be detected on top of the global bulge. I am proposing that the inner core is accelerated more strongly, so giving a greater central pressure. This should be especially apparent at a Spring Tide and measurable by modern satellite technology. The shape of the tidal bulge should be proof of my theory. I am currently searching for any existing data on the exact shape of the Earth tide.
 
Interesting post common_sense_seeker.

Are you really surprised at the hostile reaction?

These are not the responses and replies of logical and rational thinkers.

What you see here are the replies of a religious fundamentalist cult whose faith has been profaned.

Gravity changes over time as mass increases. The idea that gravity is constant is so ridiculous it does not even deserve further consideration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top