Gravity Problem Solved

[common_sense_seeker]

Good pick...
You really made your point.


And of course, there's NO OTHER explanation for the oblateness at all is there?

I've realised that the most likely place for a toroidal inner core is the Sun. This NASA article shows the potential of the idea, I believe; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. I still think that the Earth's newly found innermost inner core maybe of some original neutron material and of super-high density.

I also think that considering the Sun to be a point mass via Newton could be an oversimplification. The 'neutronium' inner core's asymmetric shape could be highly important in it's gravitational field.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

For someone else's opinion who has reached a similar conclusion, visit the Blaze Labs Rsearch site; http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I believe Einstein's rubber sheet analogy for a gravitational field is misleading and essentially incorrect. This assumes that the force carrying particles (gravitons) interact with a secondary object proportionally in all cases. It negates the importance of the secondary object's density. This is the fundamental flaw of the 'gravity problem' in my opinion.

Clearly you've never actually done any GR because the rubber sheet analogy IS AN ANALOGY. Rocket science I know but the actual details of GR do allow you to take account of densities. Anyone whose studied things like black hole or star formation will have consider collapsing masses of time varying density. The fact you haven't, despite claiming to have a degree in astronomy, speaks volumes about your level of understanding.

Tell me, have you ever actually done any GR?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I've studied Simulation Modelling at Masters Degree level and am specialised in conceptual and abstract modelling. We simply won't agree on this issue, I know. What are your opinions on the Paradox Of A Blackhole Eclipse? Is this a case for gravitational shielding?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Gravity Shielding Forum

For people who believe in the possiblity of gravitational shielding, I run a forum where these issues can be discussed: http://www.youforum.co.uk/believersingravityshielding/index.php

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I've studied Simulation Modelling at Masters Degree level and am specialised in conceptual and abstract modelling.

Big wop. My dad's a professor of fluid mechanics and has 30 years experience and expertise in computational modelling but he doesn't know the first thing about black holes.

You're qualified in an area which gives you no knowledge in relation to your claims.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You didn't answer the question regarding the Paradox Of A Blackhole Eclipse. What are your opinions on this unresolved issue?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I have yet to see you demonstrate there's a paradox. You have simply claimed that along the line through the two singularities there's a gravitational shielding effect. Can you provide a source for your claims? Give me a link to a paper, journal, book or article which derives the shielding effect. A quick Google finds this thread and one on another forum you made. It would seem you have a habit of simply making things up and proclaiming them problems with physics when infact you haven't even bothered to look into the physics.

I find it hard to believe you have any kind of science related qualification. You seem to lack basic understanding of how to go about doing science.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

General Relativity, as provided by Einstein, does not predict such a shadow. Common sense would suggest that there should be. Stan Byers has provided this link: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm. Xavier Borg emailed me with his latest devlopments:

This year we will invest in about $10000 in new equipment dedicated to accurately measure the shielding coefficient. We should have some results by Q3 this year, so keep in touch. You may also enjoy going through a bit of history: http://wiki.blazelabs.com/wiki/index.php?title=Kinetic_Theories_of_Gravitation Cheers,Xavier.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There's little in the way of quantified experimental data in that link, it's all just telling a story, not providing data for analysis. The references on the Wikipedia page show that whatever the gravitational shielding is its very very small, far smaller than seen in that experiment which suggests another cause for the effect seen in your link. Blaze Labs doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. They are privately funded which smacks of "We'll make stuff up to please our investors/funders", their website is awash with pseudoscience and all their 'published work' is either just copied out of textbooks or nonsense 'published' in an electronic journal which doesn't refuse anything, they have no reviewers and thus its zero measure of their validity.

 

[edge stormcrow]

I just figured ALL objects with mass or energy, are mutually attracted via the apparent 'gravity' force.

The ocean and the crust, and the atmosphere and the sun moon and satelites are all pulling on eachother in a gravitic system like spiderwebs i guess. Questions of crust deformation are intersting, (havent heard the idea before), but would also occur on land and be noticable by devices such as laser altimeters ?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

There's little in the way of quantified experimental data in that link, it's all just telling a story, not providing data for analysis. The references on the Wikipedia page show that whatever the gravitational shielding is its very very small, far smaller than seen in that experiment which suggests another cause for the effect seen in your link. Blaze Labs doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. They are privately funded which smacks of "We'll make stuff up to please our investors/funders", their website is awash with pseudoscience and all their 'published work' is either just copied out of textbooks or nonsense 'published' in an electronic journal which doesn't refuse anything, they have no reviewers and thus its zero measure of their validity.

The Deep Space Gravity Explorer is being used to test GR: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/wednesday/reynaud.pdf.

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946480.stm and the latest lauch details: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMZ8TJTYRF_index_0.html

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The Deep Space Gravity Explorer is being used to test GR: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/wednesday/reynaud.pdf.

I didn't say we shouldn't test GR. It's just that nothing you've provided so far implies there's a paradox because there's no evidence for your claims.

And your links don't provide anything relevant to that.

 

[Xylene]

If you're so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from Earth, then???

YOU MUST BE WRONG

CSS, the Moon is moving further away from the Earth (at the rate of ca. 2 inches per year, if I remember Isaac Asimov correctly) because the friction caused by the movement of the tides is very gradually slowing down the rotation of the Earth. The law of the conservation of angular momentum says that if energy is lost by one body, it is gained by another body; in this case the Moon gains energy from the slowing Earth, begins moving slightly faster, and pulls away. If I understand Newton's laws correctly, this does not defy Newtonian physics. I stand to be possibly corrected on that by someone brighter than me.

 

[Oli]

in this case the Moon gains energy from the slowing Earth, begins moving slightly faster, and pulls away.

Er, if it's further away it would move slower, otherwise it'll leave orbit.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Er, if it's further away it would move slower, otherwise it'll leave orbit.

There's also the paradox of why the moon isn't spinning about it's own axis if it is gaining angular momentum via tidal friction. There's a long running thread on this issue somewhere.

It should also be remembered that the moon moving away from the earth was a revelation, and not expected before the laser range finding experiment.

 

[Trippy]

There's also the paradox of why the moon isn't spinning about it's own axis if it is gaining angular momentum via tidal friction. There's a long running thread on this issue somewhere.

It should also be remembered that the moon moving away from the earth was a revelation, and not expected before the laser range finding experiment.

Bullshit.

It was predicted in 1879 or 1880 by George Howard Darwin, SON of Charles Darwin.

George postulated that Moon was orbiting at an angular velocity Ω which was slower than the spin angular velocity  of the Earth. Hence slow orbiting Moon tries to hold back Earth’s spin. This leads to transfer of angular momentum from fast spinning Earth to slow orbiting Moon. This results in outward spiral orbit of Moon.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0100

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark. I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago! Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment) has made a TV documentary entitled 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'. The standard tidal solution doesn't account for all the volcanism and heat of Io, it should be remembered (I saw it on TV).

 

[Trippy]

Okay, I admit I may have made a mistake with that remark. I remember my physics teacher saying that the moon would eventually fall into the earth. That was only about 25 years ago! Prof Brian Cox (who runs the LHC experiment) has made a TV documentary entitled 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?'. The standard tidal solution doesn't account for all the volcanism and heat of Io, it should be remembered (I saw it on TV).

Yes, it does, as far as I recall, once you take the Laplace resonance of the system into account.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Yes, it does, as far as I recall, once you take the Laplace resonance of the system into account.

This report says that tidal heating is an order of magnitude short; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JE001943.shtml

These models show that while a high-temperature convective equilibrium exists, it falls an order of magnitude short of explaining the observed heat flux. Either Io is currently out of thermal equilibrium, or another heat transport mechanism such as melt segregation determines Io's thermal state.