My gravity theory

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

How do you come to that conclusion, as this has been a problem since the beginning of physics. Torque is timeless, you have to go to the next dimension.

Torque is the rate at which angular momentum is changing. It is not timeless.

James, It's not really about which car wins, although I will say you are on my side, but do you know why?

I already told you why:

It looks like car B is consistently generating more power than car A, so tentatively I'd say that car B gets up to speed quicker.

 

[quantum_wave]

Did you read the OP?

Things are at a perpetual lull over on my thread and your thread is where it is "happening", . So when you posted the above question I went back and took another look:

When you lift a rock off the surface of the earth you are extending the radius of the rock from the center of the earth. You are forcing a higher velocity on the rock, as it is a greater distance away from the center of the earth and you are forcing the rock to travel a greater distance in space per revolution of the earth as compared to the surface of the earth.

Another way to look at this is equate the "lift" as acceleration, and since I believe that we can't distinguish acceleration due to lifting from acceleration due to gravity, (except if we happen to be able to see our surroundings and if we trust our experiences and senses), we could come up with an hypothesis of "false gravity" to account for the lift. False gravity would be equivalent to the gravitational force on the rock under the special circumstances of thinking of the rock being suspended between two fixed massive bodies, like the Earth and the moon for example. If the Earth and the moon were fixed in place in an absolute frame (just kidding about the absolute frame to bring back memories of our recent accords) and the only object able to move freely was the rock, then the gravitational force being felt by the rock would be the gravity, with acknowledgement of the inverse square law, that was attracting the rock to the earth and the gravity that was attracting the rock to the moon while it sat on Earth. The false gravity hypothesis would require that the moon would have a huge mass relative to the earth in order to pull the rock from the earth to the moon, remembering that the earth and the moon were fixed. That is the equivalent false gravity that you are applying to the rock by lifting it. The false gravity to equal the acceleration of your lifting the rock could be calculated by some of the more active mathematicians here by figuring out what the mass of the moon would have to be, given the mass of the rock and the earth, and the distances involved. Of course, false gravity can also be thought of as being equivalent to the acceleration of a rocket in deep space, i.e. what attracting mass would be required to equal the acceleration of the rocket.

In the absence of a force holding that rock at a higher velocity, the rock can not sustain that higher velocity without that force, and it returns to a spot where the velocity is correct for it, which in the earth's case is below the surface of the earth, but the earth is stopping the rock from decreasing velocity any more, as it is forcing a velocity on the rock. Ultimately there would be no velocity if you were 0 distance away from the axis. It takes more force to accelerate a larger mass, so a larger mass will require more force to accelerate the rock's velocity when you increase the radius (when you lift it).

I understand that, and it is a simple principle that is well understood by those who have studied gravity.

Of course, when rocks are trying to get to the axis and the mass of the earth won't let it it turns into a density order, because the more massive object will require more force to stop it from getting to the center. So you end up with a massive core and a less dense volume as you travel away from the axis.

I think you are rationalizing that the core of the Earth is more dense than the surface, generally speaking; am I right?

 

[Cheezle]

Things are at a perpetual lull over on my thread and your thread is where it is "happening", . So when you posted the above question I went back and took another look:

Another way to look at this is equate the "lift" as acceleration, and since I believe that we can't distinguish acceleration due to lifting from acceleration due to gravity, (except if we happen to be able to see our surroundings and if we trust our experiences and senses), we could come up with an hypothesis of "false gravity" to account for the lift. False gravity would be equivalent to the gravitational force on the rock under the special circumstances of thinking of the rock being suspended between two fixed massive bodies, like the Earth and the moon for example. If the Earth and the moon were fixed in place in an absolute frame (just kidding about the absolute frame to bring back memories of our recent accords) and the only object able to move freely was the rock, then the gravitational force being felt by the rock would be the gravity, with acknowledgement of the inverse square law, that was attracting the rock to the earth and the gravity that was attracting the rock to the moon while it sat on Earth. The false gravity hypothesis would require that the moon would have a huge mass relative to the earth in order to pull the rock from the earth to the moon, remembering that the earth and the moon were fixed. That is the equivalent false gravity that you are applying to the rock by lifting it. The false gravity to equal the acceleration of your lifting the rock could be calculated by some of the more active mathematicians here by figuring out what the mass of the moon would have to be, given the mass of the rock and the earth, and the distances involved. Of course, false gravity can also be thought of as being equivalent to the acceleration of a rocket in deep space, i.e. what attracting mass would be required to equal the acceleration of the rocket.
I understand that, and it is a simple principle that is well understood by those who have studied gravity.
I think you are rationalizing that the core of the Earth is more dense than the surface, generally speaking; am I right?

There is no "false gravity" to even think about. No need to bring the moon into the problem. When a rock is lifted 1 meter from the surface of the earth, the acceleration that Motor Daddy is talking about is not up, it is at a right angle (note: MD does not understand this), parallel with the surface of the Earth, in the direction of rotation. So you can feel what this acceleration is like. Just lift a rock and feel the sideways tug. Not feeling a tug? There is one but it is very very small.

Let's calculate the change in velocity due to the lifting a rock one meter from the surface of the Earth: Circumference is 2*pi*r. Earth radius at equator is approx 6371 km. Lets say it is exactly that radius. So circumference is 2*pi*6371 = 40030.17359204116789 km. Now add a meter (to lift a rock one meter from surface) to the radius and recalculate. 6371.001 km * 2 * pi = 40030.17987522644959. So the difference in circumference is about 6.3 meters. The change in velocity is 6.3 meters per 24 hours or 6.3 / (24*60*60) meters per second or 0.000000073 meters per second. Kind of a small delta v. And remember this is in the direction that the Earth rotates, not up but at a right angle, in the direction of rotation. So effort to lift the rock straight up is for all practical purposes just gravity. Motor Daddy's universe fails again. I am not sure I would let him change the oil in my car.

 

[Motor Daddy]

(note: MD does not understand this)

Oh, so now for all of humanity nobody has figured out what gravity was, and now you are going to tell people what I do and don't understand? You make for a spectacular Monday morning Quarterback! Don't try to understand what I know and don't know, based on our communication level. You're wrong, you know not what goes on in my head unless I tell you. If you are lucky I will speak it clear and precise enough that you will understand too, which I have done, as you clearly understand gravity now, when before I spoke you didn't.

 

[billvon]

Oh, so now for all of humanity nobody has figured out what gravity was, and now you are going to tell people what I do and don't understand?

You've already said you don't understand most math and physics. No need to guess.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You've already said you don't understand most math and physics. No need to guess.

That's your problem not mine. I know how it works, you don't. You want me to tell you? Then you need to understand me.

 

[Cheezle]

You're wrong, you know not what goes on in my head unless I tell you.

I was talking about what goes on in the real world, not Motor Daddy's brain. You have delusions of grandeur just as all cranks do. I take it back that I would not let you change the oil in my car. I don't want you within a mile of my car.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I was talking about what goes on in the real world, not Motor Daddy's brain. You have delusions of grandeur just as all cranks do. I take it back that I would not let you change the oil in my car. I don't want you within a mile of my car.

You wouldn't "LET" me change the oil in your car???

1. I wouldn't change the oil in your car if your life depended on it.
2. When was the last time you took your car for an oil change and "let" them change your oil for you? Did you let them or did you pay them, because you are not capable of doing it yourself?
3. You are the one with "grandeur" delusions if you think your education in math and physics is worth a pot to piss in! Your education has not helped physics at all!

PS. Why should I spend a dime on trying to learn all your physics and math BS, when it is clearly shown that magical attractions and Einstein's spectacular show of light illusions is just a pile of BS? You paid top dollar to learn someone's BS. How does that make you feel?

 

[AlexG]

Could MD's insistance that he is the only one in all of history to understand how things work be considered to have fallen over the edges of sanity?

 

[billvon]

You wouldn't "LET" me change the oil in your car?

You'd probably use salt water because all those "educated" mechanics just can't understand your brilliant theorems; they just listen to the car manufacturer's "oil for lubrication" BS, backed up by all that meaningless real-world experience. You know better!

 

[Cheezle]

You wouldn't "LET" me change the oil in your car???

1. I wouldn't change the oil in your car if your life depended on it.
2. When was the last time you took your car for an oil change and "let" them change your oil for you? Did you let them or did you pay them, because you are not capable of doing it yourself?
3. You are the one with "grandeur" delusions if you think your education in math and physics is worth a pot to piss in! Your education has not helped physics at all!

PS. Why should I spend a dime on trying to learn all your physics and math BS, when it is clearly shown that magical attractions and Einstein's spectacular show of light illusions is just a pile of BS? You paid top dollar to learn someone's BS. How does that make you feel?

It isn't that I think you are not a talented auto mechanic. You seem to take a lot of interest in the skill and interest can go a long way. My problem is that you don't seem to have good sense. For instance, if I said that auto mechanics is easy and anybody can do it. Anybody can rebuild an engine or a transmission with no problems, you would probably take exception with that. You know all the details and bug-a-boos that a mechanic can run into. And yet you think that physics is an area where anybody with no math or science training can waltz in and rewrite all the books on it. It is ludicrous. It takes 2 years to train to be an auto mechanic at most trade schools. It takes 4 years to get a BS in physics and really you need to get a MS or PhD to say you are really well trained. And like auto mechanics and most every other skill set it takes years of experience to really be on top of the game. So as I said, it isn't that I think you are not a good mechanic. It is that you don't have good sense. And the fact that you refuse to listen to people who know and refuse to acknowledge your failure to understand anything about the subject, that makes me think you are not rational.

 

[Lakon]

Oh, so now for all of humanity nobody has figured out what gravity was, and now you are going to tell people what I do and don't understand? You make for a spectacular Monday morning Quarterback! Don't try to understand what I know and don't know, based on our communication level. You're wrong, you know not what goes on in my head unless I tell you. If you are lucky I will speak it clear and precise enough that you will understand too, which I have done, as you clearly understand gravity now, when before I spoke you didn't.

Hi all. Reading with interest, but little time to contribute, however,

MD, you sound like you're developing a messianic complex in the above.

Tell me simply and clearly, without committing the sins you think you see in others, WHAT IS gravity ?

 

[Lakon]

It isn't that I think you are not a talented auto mechanic. You seem to take a lot of interest in the skill and interest can go a long way. My problem is that you don't seem to have good sense. For instance, if I said that auto mechanics is easy and anybody can do it. Anybody can rebuild an engine or a transmission with no problems, you would probably take exception with that. You know all the details and bug-a-boos that a mechanic can run into. And yet you think that physics is an area where anybody with no math or science training can waltz in and rewrite all the books on it. It is ludicrous. It takes 2 years to train to be an auto mechanic at most trade schools. It takes 4 years to get a BS in physics and really you need to get a MS or PhD to say you are really well trained. And like auto mechanics and most every other skill set it takes years of experience to really be on top of the game. So as I said, it isn't that I think you are not a good mechanic. It is that you don't have good sense. And the fact that you refuse to listen to people who know and refuse to acknowledge your failure to understand anything about the subject, that makes me think you are not rational.

.. However, I can understand and accept the general principals of auto mechanics without having trained in it.

To suggest that physics, reality, etc, is ncomprehensible to those without a BS, MS, PhD, is removing it to mysticism.

I have no BS, MS, PhD, yet would doubt that you have a better or more true grasp of reality that I.

 

[Cheezle]

.. However, I can understand and accept the general principals of auto mechanics without having trained in it.

To suggest that physics, reality, etc, is ncomprehensible to those without a BS, MS, PhD, is removing it to mysticism.

I have no BS, MS, PhD, yet would doubt that you have a better or more true grasp of reality that I.

Oh, I don't have a science or math degree at all. I am just a layman / enthusiast. But I do know that in areas where I have expertise, it takes a lot of time working in the field to develop that expertise. It is the same with any skill or profession. Math and physics require very deep skill sets. Way beyond what most skills require. Not stuff your average layman can pickup by reading some general science and math books. There are a very very few that can pick it easily with no formal education, but I doubt that applies to either of us. And like you with auto mechanics I know a little about anatomy and medicine, but that does not mean that I can give an informed diagnosis or perform surgery? In all subjects laymen often underestimate the skill level involved. If you have some subject area where you have expertise, I would expect you to understand this. Which leads me to believe that you don't.

In my work I sometimes attend meetings where engineers and even scientists are involved. I esp like to watch the scientists because they never fail to deliver amazing analysis and solutions. I have talked to a couple of them about how they do this. They both told me that a good knowledge of abstract algebra is key. I am currently working my way through a class on the subject and already I am seeing some increase in understanding even though it is a very difficult subject for me. I had no idea this subject even existed. Fascinating stuff.

 

[brucep]

It isn't that I think you are not a talented auto mechanic. You seem to take a lot of interest in the skill and interest can go a long way. My problem is that you don't seem to have good sense. For instance, if I said that auto mechanics is easy and anybody can do it. Anybody can rebuild an engine or a transmission with no problems, you would probably take exception with that. You know all the details and bug-a-boos that a mechanic can run into. And yet you think that physics is an area where anybody with no math or science training can waltz in and rewrite all the books on it. It is ludicrous. It takes 2 years to train to be an auto mechanic at most trade schools. It takes 4 years to get a BS in physics and really you need to get a MS or PhD to say you are really well trained. And like auto mechanics and most every other skill set it takes years of experience to really be on top of the game. So as I said, it isn't that I think you are not a good mechanic. It is that you don't have good sense. And the fact that you refuse to listen to people who know and refuse to acknowledge your failure to understand anything about the subject, that makes me think you are not rational.

Good analysis. This is the category cranks fit in all to well.

The Dunning and Kruger effect

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html

 

[Lakon]

Oh, I don't have a science or math degree at all. I am just a layman / enthusiast. But I do know that in areas where I have expertise, it takes a lot of time working in the field to develop that expertise. It is the same with any skill or profession. Math and physics require very deep skill sets. Way beyond what most skills require. Not stuff your average layman can pickup by reading some general science and math books. There are a very very few that can pick it easily with no formal education, but I doubt that applies to either of us. And like you with auto mechanics I know a little about anatomy and medicine, but that does not mean that I can give an informed diagnosis or perform surgery? In all subjects laymen often underestimate the skill level involved. If you have some subject area where you have expertise, I would expect you to understand this. Which leads me to believe that you don't.

In my work I sometimes attend meetings where engineers and even scientists are involved. I esp like to watch the scientists because they never fail to deliver amazing analysis and solutions. I have talked to a couple of them about how they do this. They both told me that a good knowledge of abstract algebra is key. I am currently working my way through a class on the subject and already I am seeing some increase in understanding even though it is a very difficult subject for me. I had no idea this subject even existed. Fascinating stuff.

Math and physics require very deep skill sets. Way beyond what most skills require.

Question being, however, does acquisition of such skills necessarily endow them with a better, closer, or truer view of reality. I would say not necessarily so.

 

[Lakon]

Good analysis. This is the category cranks fit in all to well.

The Dunning and Kruger effect

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[brucep]

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

????????

 

[Lakon]

????????

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/What's+Good+for+the+Goose

.. and please, have a little think before commenting further.

 

[brucep]

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/What's+Good+for+the+Goose

.. and please, have a little think before commenting further.

You never read what I wrote down for you in detail? Very disappointing since I wanted to answer your question? I already knew what the phrase meant. You actually think I wouldn't know? I just want to know what you think it means with respect to the Dunning & Kruger effect? That everybody has a little of that in them? We'll there's a different effect for smart [educated] people and ignorant people. It's kind of interesting. Curious which cubby hole I'm going to put you?

?? two to many. They wouldn't let me do ?? because there wasn't enough text in the post. So I jumped on ????????. Two to many. Should have been ??????. Sorry for the confusion. You might want to digest some of the Dunning & Kruger paper before making a further comment.