Lab Equipment Blog

Being a relatively uninformed layman in these things, I always wonder why these headlines always seem to scream, basically, "Einstein's Theory In Jeopardy?", which is what you've just done in your first sentence.

I don't think anything's going to come along that throws the theory of relativity out the window.

Will discoveries be made that will alter it, or add to it? I would hope so.

You wrote, "clocked at roughly 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light."

That is a totally meaningless statement. There is no context without distance. It would be more meaningful to say is was X% faster or give the actual velocity with a margin of error.

As far as the discovery goes, it is totally unconfirmed, and never witnessed before astronomically, so I am highly skeptical at this point.

Additionally, this is/has already been discussed at this blog in CR4

Maybe that's how the Millennium Falcon was able to make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. Neutrino boosters.

Exactly.

It requires some rationalization to make sense out of the line. One idea is that Han Solo was just using jargon to try to impress someone (Ben Kenobi) who Solo regarded as a rube. Another idea is that star drive engines warp space to get from A to B, and the M.Falcon's engines were powerful enough to warp space a bit more than any other starship, thus making the trip a bit shorter. Another is the idea that the speed of the M.Falcon allowed Solo to take risks like flying closer to a black hole, thus using frame-dragging to shorten the length of the trip.

Or, in 1977 George Lucas simply didn't have a clue what a parsec was.

oh goody... a starwars discussion! finally!

this has been one of the great imponderables of the starwars era...imho

I just happen to have the 3 volume "Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia" and under "Parsec" it says:

"parsec A unit used in measuring interstellar space. Han Solo claimed that the Millenium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs."

which of course, imho, determines that the answer is... #3 I think. (as it doesn't mention warped space)

Chris

My wormhole is shorter than your wormhole!

Hooker

is that a good thing?

Personally, my own highlight of the film was the band playing in the Cantina

You mix up apples and oranges:

A light year is a measure of distance.

Their technology is centuries/millenia ahead of ours.

He's being sarchastic, that's why he got a GA, and another one from me !

too funny!

(knock, knock, knock) "Penny",

(knock, knock, knock) "Penny",

(knock, knock, knock) "Penny".

This is like an episode of the "Big Bang Theory", but in real life :).

A parsec is a distance (~3.26 Light Years) based on an angle of parallax. That is somewhat greater than the distance to the bathroom in one's home, but in cities that don't believe in public toilets it can seem that far when one is out and about.

I agree. A distance value is needed, or a %. This was many miles (700+?) thru mountains.

Also, verification is needed. The discoverers asked for this verification. Verification will probably take years!

Er...if they were faster than light, did they also arrive earlier (than when they left) ?

The neutrinos didn't.

Oh i thought they should ....

_{There was a young woman named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
-Geri Taran}

They should add gender detection to the neutrine detectors

Why? Just because one gender uses neurinals? ;-)

Gosh, NO. Light isn't instantaneous.

Good explication of where our way of thinking goes wrong.

Add probability to the system, assuming that the chance of having a particle at c speed is nearly none. The further you go from c the more chance you have of having it.

Creating higher energy particles that should have a speed near c in fact have speeds over c as the probability of these speeds is again higher than c itself.

This experiment learn us that the virtual boundaries we build in, where we claim that the mathematics are not valid anymore, are invalid on themselves. But some caution has to be taken.

The main question that can be formulated now: can we use this knowledge to push a vehicle/object over the c limit and make it travel faster than c?

I bet if you are "watching" them they behave differently.(Like children)

Excellent!

Right. And the latest joke going around the internet is:

The bartender says, "We don't serve your kind in here". A tachyon goes into a bar.

Well for all of those that think it may not be possible that things can travel faster than c, then why do we still use Newton's law of gravitation for calculating orbits for spacecraft (instantaneous) and not the speed of c? For some reason c gives an incorrect answer in the equations. And don't give me the tripe about how Newton's laws are close enough as instantaneous is certainly a lot faster than c and should be even more incorrect if gravity does indeed propagate at c.Not that I claim it is instaneous, just a whole lot faster than c or the math would not work.

You wrote, "For some reason c gives an incorrect answer in the equations."

That is because Newton's method is wrong. But it does give you close enough in most instances where the magnitude of gravity is relatively small compared to the distance between objects.

Newton's equations break down when space-time curvature is high. Newton's methods were never able to accurately account for the orbit of Mercury about the Sun. This problem was noticed in 1859 and physicists struggled to explain why rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit did not match predicted values as it did with other planets.

It remained an anomaly until Einstein presented his work on General Relativity, which solved the problem.

The perihelion shift is also a factor for the other planets, but because their orbits are so long it could not be observed to the degree of accuracy required.

It is erroneous to think that Newton's method of assuming gravity propagates instantaneously somehow justify faster than light travel - it doesn't.

First, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the proposed existence of super-luminous particles and Newton's math. Second, Newton's law of gravity is not correct.

Not to beg the question too much, but Newton's Law of graivty IS correct....but incomplete. Newton's Law accounts for many phenomena accurately but in certain instances, it no longer describes what's observed. That makes it incomplete, just like classical or Newtonian physics is accurate for many instances but not all. Accurate but incomplete means good up to a point, but no so good beyond that point. Another way to think about it is "useful but not entirely true".

I am glad that someone else made the point of Einstein's Theory of Relativity not forbidding faster-than-light travel. Anyone with an eye for math and who has studied relativity theory can pick up the point quickly, even if we currently have no observational evidence of faster-than-light reality. (But a hundred years ago there was no observational evidence of phenomena we take for granted now. Our entire electronic cuture is based on phenomena not even imagined in 1920.)

Many layman's books on modern physics make this point, but it seems to have escaped popular notice. Hence, we get silly headlines like "Einstein's theory in jeopardy". The only thing really in jeopardy is our current limited concepts of reality.

You wrote, "Not to beg the question too much, but Newton's Law of graivty IS correct....but incomplete."

Incomplete, or wrong?

If a mathematic formula only works for odd numbers, but fails for all even numbers, can you claim that formula is correct for the whole number set?

No, you can't simply claim it incomplete. Because something works partially does not necessarily grant it the status of being on the right path. Physicists have struggled with this eternally. They find an explanation that appears to work, but fails at some point later during testing. The explanation may be incomplete if the basic premise is sound, but in the case of Newton's Law of Gravity, it is not.

Newtonian physics is based on a false premise. That is, that gravity is a mutual force of attraction that spans distances instantaneously. The premise stood firm until the level of accuracy we could measure with uncovered a flaw. Try as physicists and mathematicians might they were not able to reconcile those anomalies based on Newton's premise.

Einstein presented a completely different premise where gravity is a function of curved space-time and not some instantaneous force of mutual attraction. Einstein's work has described the effect of gravity to remarkable precision.

However, there is a fly in the ointment there, too. In the macro world of astrophysics, Einsteins equations work fine. At sub-atomic levels they do not. Here, too, Einstein's premise appears to break down in the quantum world. While the jury is still out, it may be that Einstein is standing in Newton's shoes in this regard. Time will be the arbiter in the end, but General Relativity may only be a more accurate version of describing what we see with respect to gravity than what Newton observed and hypothesized.

The two premises, Newton's Law of Gravity and General Relativity, are based on completely different grounds and function in completely different ways. They both can not be right and General Relativity is not and extension of Newton's Law of Gravity.

Then why is Newton's laws used not GR if it is so wrong? I asked you not to give me the tripe about it being close enough. Are you actually trying to tell me that instantaneous is even close to the value of c? And for your information you need to go check the math of GR not the description as you will find the math uses zero aberration which is the same thing as saying gravity travels instantly. Light has aberration from Sun to Earth, yet the calculations for gravity use the value of zero aberration. That same math reduces to newton's laws, yet you are going to tell me Newton's laws are incorrect? What does that say about GR then?

Well, we are here (even though you asked not to be) because you made a statement which I believe to be wrong.

It has nothing to do with the velocity of light (C) and instantaneous gravity force.

Where is Newton's Law of Gravity specifically used in General Relativity?

Define the word "aberration" as you mean it. To me it means deviation from the normal.

Let's answer this question you wrote, "Then why is Newton's laws used not GR if it is so wrong?"

It depends on the level of accuracy you need. When building a house, a tape measure is a quite respectable tool. When measuring at the molecular level a force atomic microscope is a more meaningful instrument.

Newton's equations work fine for most needs. It is only when you get down to the point where higher precision is required that General Relativity is the right tool.

Getting back to the house, it is far easier to measure 2 X 4s using a tape measure than trying to work with an instrument designed to measure down to sub-angstroms. The difference in precision will not yield a better house and the cost of such accurate instruments and the training to operate them is prohibitive.

The same goes with gravity. Newton's Law provides a pretty accurate account of the day. A high school student can easily perform the calculations. Conversely, using General Relativity to solve simple gravity problems requires a great deal more mathematic skills for a level of accuracy that is usually not worth the mathematical gymnastics to achieve.

Because a tape measure is not absolutely accurate down to the Angstrom does not render it a useless instrument.

Despite not wanting a tripe of being close enough, that is the truth of the matter. It is all about precision and the cost of getting that precision. Does that help answer your question?

Interesting.....in one post you favor using Newton's Laws in certain instances, but in your reply to me you proclaim the theory isn't accurate/incomplete but wrong.

Which is it? If it's wrong, why use it? Could it be because it's accurate in some domains even if not all?

That's why I called it accurate and incomplete. It is accurate in the sense that it can be reliably and repeataby used to predict future events, within limits. It is incomplete because it cannot predict future outcomes in certain instances.

And please note I never claimed Newton's Laws represent the "correct" theory of gravity, only that in certain cases the Laws were accurate and useful. "Accurate and useful" do not imply "correct".

Maybe if you reread my posts it would make sense.

It is wrong because the premise that the equation is built on is wrong and has been proven so.

Does that make it useless? No, of course not. It is a very good approximation.

To claim it is accurate, as you say, is totally nebulous information. How do you define accurate? That is like claiming a car is fast. Great for marketing, but means actually nothing.

Incomplete? What more would you do to it? The theory that it is based on is wrong, so how do you make it more complete without scraping it and starting over?

On September 8th, 2002 an experiment upheld the assumption made by Einstein that gravity's "speed" is that of the speed of light. Hardly instantaneous, which is the foundation of Newton's Law.

At this point I am not sure if you are just trying to argue for the sake of semantics or you are positing that Newton's Law is correct (and therefore Einstein must be wrong). The vast preponderance of evidence supports General Relativity.

Aberration is similar to transit delay.

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

So I could not use a more accurate tape measure to build a house? The funny thing is orbital calculations do NOT work when you input the value of c for the gravitational force, not kinda, not approximate, they fail completely. Since it is claimed gravity propagates at c then the value of c should work just fine, but it gives you the incorrect result every time. Are you telling me the math works with an incorrect result, but not with the correct result? Since GR reduces to Newtonian math there is no basis to claim that GR is more precise. GR uses Newtonian math in its equations, it built upon that math, not overturned it. To say Newtonian math is incorrect is to say GR is incorrect since that is the basis upon which all GR math rests. The rest comes from Maxwell (calculations involving electrical forces, not gravitational forces).

You wrote, "So I could not use a more accurate tape measure to build a house?"

Why would you?

Houses have been built using tape measures for years and they serve well. If you want to you a digital caliper (assuming you buy one with enough length) the tool could cost you thousands of dollars. However, instead of being accurate to 1/16" you could be accurate to 0.001".

However, the tools you use to cut the wood would be far less accurate, so now you need to use expensive cutting machinery to match the precision of your measurement.

If 2 decimal places works to build a house to everyone's satisfaction, what performance improvement does 3, 4, or even 10 decimal places of precision offer you? On top of that the cost of the house will be much, much more expensive (someone will have to pay for those high precision tools).

You wrote, "The funny thing is orbital calculations do NOT work when you input the value of c for the gravitational force, not kinda, not approximate, they fail completely."

Yes, of course, but it is apples to basketballs! The value of G (6.67300 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) is of completely different units to the speed of light (i.e., meters per second).

It's like substituting Draino for fine wine.

If you really have an interest in this I really recommend doing more research on the internet on the subject or maybe a basic physics course at a community college would help explain things and give you a better foundation.

You still have not explained why the value of instantaneous works but the value of c does not in the math, nor have you explained why GR uses zero aberration in its math which is exactly the same as saying instantaneous. You can use any words you like, but the math contradicts every single word.

Simple. Newton's formula is wrong. It does not matter if you use C, 2C, or 100 mph. All will give erroneous results because the founding premise is wrong. Actually, more to your point, Newton assumed gravity's speed as infinite. So, if you apply some other speed for gravity then the equation will produce erroneous results. Why? Because Newton made that assumption and every thing we now know says that his assumption was wrong. Therefore the equation is built on a false premise.

That is no fault of Newton's. They simply lacked the instrumentation to test the equation like we can today.

Finally, Einstein assumed the speed of light for the speed for gravity. He never, never, used Newton's Law of Gravity for General Relativity. They are not the same and you can't exchange constants or anything else.

I remember running across somewhere on the internet a good explanation of what happens to Newton's prediction when gravity's effect is less than infinite. If I can find that link I will list it and it may help explain what I am trying to explain.

You don't even use the speed of c in GR and GR is based upon Newton's laws and reduces to Newton's laws, so that must make GR wrong too. You can't have it both ways. The math in GR uses zero aberration, and zero aberration is instantaneous, plain and simple. The explanation can say it is the speed of light but the math says otherwise. You try to hide the math in fancy words, but math is math and the math says it is instantaneous in both Newton's law and GR else GR could not reduce to Newtonian law in the weak field, low velocity limit. This fact is unavoidable and the only way around it is to try to confuse people with fancy words, people that DO NOT understand the math. You didn't even know what aberration was and you are going to try to tell me how GR is correct? We use aberration to calculate the speed of light, so why would we set it to zero in GR if gravity propagates at the same speed? It takes 8 minutes for light to reach earth from the sun, yet we use no aberration when calculating the position of the sun gravitationally. Then they try to dodge this by saying that space-time is static, but that fails too. Then since gravity falls of as the inverse square why don't you try calculating the distance it would reach by the estimates of the mass of the Sun. falls rather short doesn't it, even at earths orbital distance its effects would be almost nill. We do not even know what causes gravity, how it is transmitted, yet you are going to assure me it travels at c, and then use math that says it doesn't.

Show me the equation in General Relativity that uses Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation.

Actually, it is only the gravitational constant G used in the Einstein Field Equations, which I posted earlier here today with the units, but Newton's Law of Gravitation can be derived in cases where the mass of the body is low (weak-gravity-field approximation) and the velocity is well below the speed of C (slow motion approximation).

I would not say Einstein Field Equations are based on Newton's laws (clearly not derived from them), but feel free to show me how if you know.

As far as I am aware of almost everything in the universe travels at a velocity well below that of c, so I guess Newton's law would apply almost everywhere. And I have yet to see one object that has been shown to have above normal mass and gravity for the size of the object. I do not mean hypothetical objects that have no explanation so one is made up, I mean actual observed high body masses where the gravitation has been measured? One example? No?

You wrote, "As far as I am aware of almost everything in the universe travels at a velocity well below that of c, so I guess Newton's law would apply almost everywhere."

It's not just velocity that matters, but mass, too. When you factor in large masses like the Sun or Jupiter, then Einstein Field Equations have a place. Again, it all comes down to the amount of precision you need for your answer.

You wrote, "I mean actual observed high body masses where the gravitation has been measured? One example? No?"

Yes, it is routinely done, but what do you define as above normal?

There is plenty of evidence for black holes and their effects well documented. Let alone the countless Type-O stars that have masses that average about 60 solar masses with observed upper limits of about 100 solar masses. Big enough?

You said high mass, newton's law explains the orbit of Jupiter and the sun just fine and even to send probes to Jupiter. GR has never been used to launch a single spacecraft or a single probe or a single satellite. Yet supposedly GR has superceeded newton's law of gravitation. Yet what formula do you use to calculate the strength of gravity? GR or Newton's? Black Holes are nothing but a mathematical artifice, and one that isn't even allowed in Swartzschild's original formula, but only in the corrupted version by Hilbert. Swartzschilds original formula is a solution for a one body problem in a universe devoid of all other mass, it was later corrupted by Hilbert with the ad-hoc addition of mass (contrary to Einstein requiring that any mass first be described by an energy tensor), which except for the trivial case of said energy tensor being zero which precludes any mass. This was done to allow for the addition of more supposedly singularities by the rule of superposition which does not apply in GR. Then you want the laws of physics to break down at the event horizon, but then use GR math to try to explain the Black Hole. Which can not be done without using an energy tensor which you have already set to zero so that precludes any mass.

Let me ask you a question. How much gravity is there at the center of a star? A star of any size, you pick.

General Relativity is not needed to navigate SVs (space vehicles) because they already make mid course corrections and Newton's gravitational equations are good enough for weak-field work.

You wrote, "Let me ask you a question. How much gravity is there at the center of a star? A star of any size, you pick."

That seems like a strange question. Why do you ask and for what purpose? What is the center? I guess if it is center of mass, then the gravity is the same as the center of mass for the Moon or any other celestial body. Maybe the question is not strange, but silly.

Anyway, your position on this and black holes seems to run against the grain of popular scientific belief. I guess you are proposing that Newton is right, Einstein is mistaken and black holes are simply a theoretical anomaly of math.

Maybe you are right and thousands of other physicists are just off track. You should present your findings to them because you are well beyond my understanding of the subject and you should be debating this with higher minds.

Then if you don't want to debate Black Holes do not bring them up as an offering in support of any arguments.

The answer to the question is zero. The center of any body has zero gravity, the surface is always where gravity is strongest. The idea that a star can collapse into a BH when the gravity below its surface is less than on its surface is absurd. A star could never collapse into a point as inward or outward there is always "less" gravity, not more. You can add all the mass in the universe and still the very core, the point, would have zero gravity.

I look forward to reading your scholarly paper on this theory and the ensuing debate.

Of, wait, if the gravity is always zero at the center of any mass, then not only is it impossible for that mass to collapse into a black hole, but impossible for any mass to gather into planets, stars, and other objects.

Poof! There goes the idea of neutron stars, too. What's wrong with this picture?

Alright, please forgive my silliness, but I was trying to make a point. Matter will collapse because of gravity, even if the gravity at the mass center is zeroed or balanced out. The reason is called pressure exerted from material above the mass center downward toward the mass center.

It is the reason you have something to stand on. It is the reason why water pressure increases with the depth of the ocean. You could have a huge ball of water the size of Earth floating in space and the interior pressure will be huge compared to the surface pressure.

The Sun also has an outward pressure due to the nuclear furnace inside. A star that is large enough (somewhere around 3 solar masses or more) may form a black hole under the right condition once the nuclear furnace stops and enough mass remains. The lack of outward pressure will cause the star's mass to collapse downward and increase it's density until it finally becomes a black hole...

Actually, I don't want to debate you on the subject anymore because I just don't think you can be convinced of anything. You have little (or no) interest in actually learning anything and every interest in just arguing what you believe to be true.

If anything, if you can prove to me that you have a sincere desire and willingness to learn something from the debate, I would be glad to engage. Otherwise this discourse is going nowhere.

Because neutron stars do not exist and planets and stars are not formed by gravitation, they are formed from z-pinches, (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pinch) try looking up plasma physics since 99.999% of the universe is in a plasma state, that just might be a good idea. Neutron stars were postulated to explain pulsars, since it was "assumed" that pulsars were pulsing because of spin. but that became untenable when pulsars were found with millisecond pulse rates, meaning they must spin at up to 24,000 RPM and would then fly apart. It was then decided they must be made of neutronium, even though that is not a real substance and unbound neutrons decay to electron/protons in less than 15 minutes and two neutrons placed together immediately fly apart. But they are stuck with their lighthouse theory and can find no other way to explain them.

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

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

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Neutron_star

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pulsar

Water pressure increases with depth because density increases as temperature falls as density decreases as temperature rises. Which since theory says the center of the earth is molten would also make it less dense by the gravitational theory.

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

As you can see gravity decreases with both height and depth from the surface of any object, it does not increase with depth. (see depth and altitude).

You are a hoot.

First you engage in a banter trying to upend everything without even discussing the founding premise you are coming from. It is all a game that you are playing while sitting in some high chair.

Then, you finally come clean (after a long and ridiculous thread) about what you actually believe.

Personally, I find that deceitful. You should have stated your position right at the start of the argument and stated that, "My beliefs are outside the mainstream cosmology - here is why..."

You would have had a lot more credibility (at least in my mind), than dancing around in the shadows playing games. Instead, you have done nothing but demonstrate weakness for your case.

Personally I am really not concerned what you believe or do not believe, you may of course hold on to outdated theories made before we had the technology to discover new ones. people once thought the same thing about Newton and Copernicus, that the world was once flat, that the milky way was once the only galaxy. each time those beliefs were overturned it was by a cosmology that was in the minority and sooner or later all the facts will add up. i am quite confident that current cosmology is on the downhill slide, it's only a matter of time. Einstein formulated his theory with the belief that the universe was static, not expanding. He argues against using his theory to justify Black Holes till the day he died. If you think he was so correct then you too should not believe in Black Holes. So you must believe he was wrong?

sjw40364: It appears that you are absolutely positive of your stance even though you are wrong!!

So you say, but every day more and more evidence is added to the EU theory. Now we have fillimentation connecting galaxy to galaxy, star to planet, not explainable in your gravity only model, but perfectly understandable in an Electric/Plasma model. You have flat rotation curves in galaxies, to which you have to imagine dark matter, which then means you have to imagine dark Energy to counteract the DM. neither is needed in an EU model. You have Black holes that suck everything in spitting out jets at near light speed, yet that is a natural event in an EU model, exactly how we accelerate particles here on earth. You have pulsating stars that you imagine spin so fast they must be made of impossible substances, yet once again, a natural event in an EU model. So i guess time will tell who is correct and who is wrong. The world was once flat, then round, then the center of the universe, then just a planet circling the Sun in the only galaxy, then well, it wasn't the only galaxy. Cosmology changes as new discoveries are made and sooner or later the cosmology of today will change as well into an EU model.

"the surface is always where gravity is strongest"

This is simply not true. Gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the center of gravity of the body(s) in question. think about it...

If you drilled a hole through the center of the Earth and dropped a probe (Ford) down the hole, Once the car passed 4,000 miles the warranty would run out.

Strangely, at the Earth's exact center of mass, so would the gravity? Why? Because at the center gravity is now pulling from all directions and balances out to zero.

However, there would be a huge down (or is it inward) pressure from "above" pressing inward.

Someone here does not quite get that, but I would recommend a little experiment where that someone would lie on their backs and have someone stack bricks on their stomach, one at a time.

According to that person it will get lighter as more bricks get stacked.

i was just a passerby here, but this argument intrigues me.

Gravity at the center of the earth is zero because the distance between the two bodies (earth and Ford) is zero perhaps? Or is it ∞ ? As you move away, a strong gravity will try to pull the Ford to the center.

Coming to the bricks. The first one will exert a force X on the tummy. The second one will exert about 2"/4000miles * X, the next one about 6"/4000miles *X and so on, assuming a 4" brick. The total stack doesn't get any lighter, just that each brick gets apparently lighter. If you could take enough bricks to go say 100 miles high (and still be alive) the topmost brick may add no weight at all...is this not weightlessness ?

Maybe i am missing some vital points in your post....if so, sorry.

Not quite. Think of gravity as a vector.

At the exact center of mass (COM) the gravity vectors all intersect at that exact point and when summed will equal zero.

However, When you look at the whole picture, all of the mass on one side of the COM is "pulling" on all of the mass on the other side of the COM, thus squeezing the whole together.

This is a vital point that our original poster just does not get. When you take our Sun, for example, all of its mass is squeezing downward toward the COM because the mass attracts itself (each other).

My illustration of the bricks was not so good, perhaps.

Another way to think of it is replace the bricks with magnets and start placing magnets, two at a time, on opposite sides of your finger so they attract each other. As you add magnets the force on your finger goes up.

In my brick analogy I was trying to illustrate that adding bricks will create a crushing force as more and more bricks are added. You could do the same thing in space, far from any other mass, and as you add bricks on your back and your front they will attract each other with greater and greater force as the total mass increases. Eventually, being at the center will get very uncomfortable.

Also, in your 100 mile high stack of bricks (forgetting the Earth's rotation for the moment), the top most brick will not be weightless, but will have a microgravity of its own. It will be tiny, but present.

In the late 1700s there was a famous experiment called the Cavendish experiment. It used two lead balls suspended on a balance and two very much larger lead balls suspended just inside the balance with the smaller lead balls. This experiment actually calculated the gravitational constant. You might want to do a quick search and read about this fascinating experiment.

Thinking about it messes with my brain!!

I suspect the inverse square gravity decrease will apply only if the bodies are separated by a "large" distance (That is, a distance where the diameter of the body can be considered small in comparison.) If you are right at the surface, I think the gravity would be some sort of integral since you are at various distances from all the "particles." (Also many to the right and left, but their attraction will sum to zero.)

No, that is not true, gravity does not decrease as an inverse square from distance from the center. Gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance from its surface, not its center. Gravity is always stronger on its surface, not at the core. If you go towards the center of a planet gravity will decrease until at zero in its center.

Read depth and altitude and see the conflicting descriptions science uses.

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

One says its distance from the core, the other says that as you near the core gravity decreases just as it does as you leave the surface and go upwards. of course you will be told this is due to less mass inside the radius when it is in fact due just as much to the fact that there is now more mass above you pulling in the opposite direction.

excellent. ga.

Yet claim what you will but the fact remains that gravity is always strongest on the surface of a planet, not at its core. Whether you go up or down gravity decreases either direction. Do you have any citations or scientific papers that show otherwise? Please, feel free to present them, I would love to see one paper that has tested the gravitational strength below the surface of the earth and shows it to be higher than at it's surface??

"gravity is always strongest on the surface of a planet, not at its core"

Ever heard of LaGrange points? They are the points in space where the gravity wells of two or more adjacent/nearby/neighboring objects with sufficiently large gravitational pull (read that, planets, moons, etc.) balance out. We put satellites in them, and there are many out hanging in space at present, without need for station-keeping fuel, because the pulls of all adjacent objects balance there. The result is that a move in any direction requires traveling AWAY FROM A NEIGHBORING body, which pulls the satellite back into the "hole" thus formed. It doesn't even take a cosmic theory to understand this phenomenon, or to understand not only HOW it works, but that it DOES work. And that "hole", when we measure its gravitational pull, has an apparent zero gravity, BECAUSE ITS ALL IN BALANCE! As many here have tried to tell you is the reason for zero gravity at the earth's core. It ain't zero gravity. It's GRAVITY IN BALANCE FROM ALL SIDES!!

So you are telling me that it takes more thrust to leave a Lagrange point than the surface of any planet, even the moon? Balanced forces has nothing to do with strength of force. It just means that what little force is there is balanced. And once you leave this point and go in any direction towards any of the objects producing this balance the gravitational pull will become stronger. Yet gravitationally that theory fails as well. Point L2 which is on the opposite side of the earth from the Sun should have two bodies pulling, and not in opposition. Lagrange points are more likely the intersection of electrical and magnetic fields which produce a null void and have very little to do with Gravity.

You wrote, "Lagrange points are more likely the intersection of electrical and magnetic fields which produce a null void and have very little to do with Gravity."

This is a better definition for Lagrangian points

The definition is not simply the vector null of two or more gravitational bodies, but also includes the orbital dynamics of the bodies.

Thank you. You are obviously more suited to this jousting with a determined person, than I. You are also obviously better equipped to discuss it. "Electrical" and "Magnetic"? Obviously they have nothing (well, he said "little") to do with gravity, nor centripetal force.

Yah well, wiki also thinks gravity is weaker towards the center than tells me gravity is weaker the higher you go because you are further from the center. An magnatism is more than you ever imagined.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

kind of explains the weird orbits of the asteroids in L points a little better than gravity huh?

Since when is youtube a trustfull source of scientific reference.

I must have missed the blog on that

Go to their website, or did you convienently forget to see that part?

Hi,

The demo is a very neat demo. What is shows is superconducting material and a magnet. However, there are some important differences between magnetism and gravity.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe;

Force ------------------- Particle that Transmits that Force

gravity ----------------- Graviton (Theoretical Particle)

electromagnetic ------- Photon

weak nuclear force ---- Weak Gauge Bosons

strong nuclear force --- Gluon

Gravity is actually the weakest of those four and is about 10^-36 times less powerful than the strong nuclear force. However, it is the range of gravity that gives it its power - it is unlimited in distance. Also, the magnitude of its force diminishes with the square of its distance. Mathematically, it never reaches zero, but it approaches what is known as a zero asymptote as you continue to recede in distance.

Magnetism or a magnetic field is different and does not extend like gravity. That field curves back onto itself from pole to pole and the distance by which it operates is substantially less.

Magnetism has no part in the orbits and movements of the planets and asteroids. It is gravity that plays that part.

Now, let's return to your premise that gravity is zero at the center of the Earth. Actually, we know it is not, but because gravity is pulling uniformly in all directions the sum of those forces becomes zero at the center.

The way to understand this is with something called Vector Math

Vector math will let you calculate the exact force on two or more objects based on proximity and angle. The illustration I have, demonstrates how the aggregate force of gravity acts on the green square inside a large sphere. The box has gravity and so does the sphere because both are made up of mass.

Ideally you could consider every single particle in the sphere and every single particle in the green box and calculate the forces between each. Vector math also uses both positive and negative numbers (plus trigonometric functions) so that when you sum the all forces for all particles it will add up to zero.

For instance, the arrow at 12 O'Clock is precisely negated with the arrow at 6 O'Clock, and so on.

So, there really is gravity at the center, but the force of its algebraic sum is zero at the center, so the box has no tendency to move in one direction or another.

Vector math is really a foundation for understanding physics and forces. You get a good does of it in first year college physics and it lays the groundwork for understanding the principles we have been discussing. Vectors have both magnitude and direction. Velocity is a vector in physics. Speed does not imply a direction. Acceleration is a vector, just as the force of gravity is a vector.

Excuse me? Gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance, while the E/M force falls of as the inverse square, Magnetism causes things to circle at right angles to the electrical force, while gravity lacks any tangential force whatsoever. Magnetism only exists where the electrical force is, and if you have kept up with astronomy they are discovering magnetism everywhere, they just never explain to you that where there are magnetic fields you have electric charge.

You only believe magnetism plays no part in planetary orbits, yet everything spins and or orbits according to the right hand rule of the E/M force. Magnetism causes things to spin and orbit around electrical pathways. We have already just recently discovered the Birkeland currents connecting Sun and earth and these same currents connecting every galaxy we can observe. The universe is not homogenous, it is fillimentary, exactly what is expected in a Plasma/Electric Universe, but not a gravity based one. Take some electrical engineering courses and plasma physics courses before you close your mind. Might be a good idea anyways since 99.999% of the universe is in a plasma state.

Those electromagnetic currents and fields do not carry enough energy to explain what we observe.

Also, I had stated in my previous post, "Also, the magnitude of its force diminishes with the square of its distance."

Did you miss that? For electromagnetic forces it is also known as Coulomb's Law.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toaaj/articles/V004/SI0162TOAAJ/165TOAAJ.pdf

Better words than I could ever say, but be sure to note that even in a plasma you call electrically neutral even one charged particle in every 10,000 has a force 10 to the 7th power stronger than gravity and the electric force is capable of attracting and repelling. That's why those jets accelerated out of galaxies are so hard to explain with that pesky gravity and you have to resort to all sorts of fabricated events to try to explain it. And if gravity is so all encomposing then why invent dark matter to explain what gravity never could accomplish on its own? Of course that caused further problems and then you had to invent dark energy to counteract the problems caused by the DM. maybe some day you will learn. Those currents just between the earth and Sun which are as large as the diameter of the earth at 40,000 miles and carry the power to cause upper atmospheric explosions with the energy release of a 5.5 magnitude earthquake, repeatedly. Maybe you better look into that huh?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

That first PDF link was so riddled with errors I simply could go no further than the first two pages.

Alternate theories are fine, but what you are proposing was born long ago before the wealth of instruments we have today. Those new instruments have poked so many holes into this alternate theory that it no longer has any wind left.

Mayube because the first two pages deal with current cosmology :) But please, point some of these errors out to those of us less enlightened. Nothing worse than someone that claims something is wrong then gives no cooberating evidence for thier view. One can say anything is wrong. But then those of us that support the EU are used to such comments without facts, soon i expect the name calling to begin, that's usually next in the so-called scientific debate.

Isn't worth my time to go blow-by-blow. Besides, you have your mind made up. But, for instance, there are plenty of competing theories to the Standard Model, contrary to what the PDF claims, like String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, or whatever suits your fancy.

I just can't take the theory you are proposing seriously because it has more holes in it than the Standard Model, which I think is either partially wrong or at least incomplete. However, it does have a lot of things going for it, whereas the Plasma Universe does not.

Life is short and I really don't have time to explore every possible theory presented to any great depth, so I just try to at least understand the basics of the most accepted theories. Nothing to date compels me to believe that Plasma Theory is worth any more of my time. Its theories are dated and modern observations and experiments have rendered many of the theories' counter arguments to the Standard Model mute. At which point supporters of Plasma Theory start talking about bias and other subjective claims that they know are going to be impossible to settle. So the debate becomes senseless.

I really don't know you, but if you reread every one of your posts you would realize that you really have stopped asking questions a long time ago and now see fit to only challenge everything and one that doesn't embrace Plasma Theory. Your mindset has become one of a true believer, the very thing you accuse everyone else of being. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh, don't read that as a personal attack. It wasn't anything but a personal observation and I don't harbor any ill will against you. I just disagree with your premise.

Sort of like you have your mind made up and are not open to new ideas? Competing? So string theory disagrees with current cosmology?

You can''t take it seriously because of the holes yet you can't point out one hole, that's rather significant. You are correct about ironic, but you need to apply it to your own reasoning. You want to admit to all the effects of plasma and electricity in space but then say the cause is from gravity. Gravity does not cause magnetism, gravity does not accelerate jets of plasma, gravity does not emit x-ray radiation or gamma rays or any of the others.

I admit gravity exists in space, I accept that, so I do not believe I am the one with the closed mind. Perhaps you need to look into the mirror when you say that, since you have already made up your mind that nothing else can be the cause and are a true believer yourself. You refuse to even read any alternate ideas, just dismiss them out of hand then claim they are wrong, but are unable to point out one error, just use the fallback, "it's wrong". Of course I expected nothing less from a religious fanatic, any more than I would expect from someone arguing religion.

At least I have the decency to point out what I believe is wrong, not just make the general sweeping claim that it is wrong, which had I done that you would of dismissed out of hand and asked me to provide proof. But I understand you have none, just your religious belief so it's ok.

Wow! You are changing words for your own prejudiced advantage.

Really? Please show me that change? He claims they are outdated, yet its funny how every new discovery proves the Plasma cosmology more than it does the standard one. he claims he understands plasma cosmology, but can't point out one flaw, admits he only read 2 pages, and i doubt if he's read more than that about the entire plasma cosmology.

If you got some facts you would like to present, please do. half the discoveries made were made 2 decades after current cosmology was formulated and before we had the equipment to view the universe in x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves.

Please explain to me what causes radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays and how gravity does this? Please explain to me how neutron stars form when lone neutrons decay in less than 15 minutes and two neutrons will immediately fly apart? Please explain to me how gravity forms a star when the natural tendency of gas in space is to disperse, not condense. Every experiment with gas in space has never had this gas coalesce, but disperse. Do you have one actual experiment to back that up or just relying on someones thoughts of how it happened? You have had to change what Black holes are so many times its almost laughable, yet not once have you thought maybe the theory is wrong and that's why the explanation must always be changed. You all are so closed minded you can't even see it, blinded by your own dogmatic beliefs.

Seems like you even lost track of what you were replying about!

He really has no more arrows in his quiver here.

This link on Plasma Cosmology pretty much sums up where the theory is at.

COBE and subsequent data on the CMB have pretty well driven the stake through the heart of Plasma Cosmology.

There are so many things that Plasma Cosmology simply does not account for that we observe today and things that are predicted have not been detected. The idea that new findings and observations in science today lend even more credibility to Plasma Cosmology is simply pathological.

Again, Langmuir's description of pathological science fits very well this whole discussion:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

3. Claims of great accuracy.

4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.

5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Points 4 and 5 seem to be dead on here.

You mean the CMB that shows the background radiation is not homogenous but in clumps and has a huge hole in it science now wants to explain as a parallel universe, that CMB? The CMB that matches up exactly with gamma ray sources from within our own galaxy, that CMB? The CMB that is supposed to be the most distant thing we can observe, yet has no galactic shawdowing in it, that CMB? The CMB quite a few astronomers are claiming is merely radiation emitted from our own galaxy, that CMB? The CMB your theory first predicted at 57K, while static models predicted 3.4K that CMB? Best have better evidence than that. Your theory couldn't even predict the correct value by over 10 orders of magnitude, until "AFTER" it was measured, then sudden;y the predictions all fell in line. The CMB neither supports an expanding universe nor a static one, it supports any theory you choose to apply it to and we all know that don't we. Or are you fooled by all the hype as well without having done your research?

This CMB?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cosmological_Data_Affected_By_An_Unexpected_Source_Of_Radiation_In_Interstellar_Space_999.html

You are out of control. Chill out. You act like it is your mission in life to forcibly cram this stuff down everyone's throat. Why should you even care if anyone refuses to believe it? What is it to you?

It's like arguing with a radio.

I don't really care what you want to believe and I am not compelled to change your mind. I invested a lot of my time for the purpose of trying to answer some of your questions and correct what I believe are some of your misunderstandings. Some of this is just morbid amusement on my part, but tell me why I should even bother investing any more time with you?

You haven't given one single piece of data, or shown one single correction, what are you talking about? All you have done is claim the theory is wrong without pointing out one single error except for some flimsy CMB data that your theory predicted should have been up in the 50K and which fits a static model as well as an expanding model, or any model. in fact it fits a plasma model since it shows clumpiness, not homogenous distribution.

Apparently you do care what I or others believe or why would you bother in the first place? That's an outy, to distance oneself from something one knows he is in no position to defend. I simply presented an alternate theory, you chose to claim it was wrong without one actual proof to the contrary. You are correct in one thing though. When debating with proponents of the standard model it is indeed like arguing with a radio, all words with no facts.

I only care when it gets to the point where mobs start carrying burning torches and pitchforks and shouting "Witch, witch!"

How can anyone take Plasma Cosmology seriously? Just do a search on the web and site after site is a variable cult. I can find nothing, nothing in Nature, or even Scientific American discussing this theory. I have yet to see one real scholarly paper on the subject (except those that are 20 or so years old and older). Please don't post or repost the papers you have cited as scholarly. Jorrie already debunked the one.

With the total absence of any credible articles on the theory, just who do you expect to convert except the ignorant? It is junk science.

I am still waiting for you to respond to Jorrie's posts. Never mind me, you can't argue with him so you just ignore his challenges or quickly change the subject. If you really want a debate, answer his posts. But you can't because you lack even the basic understanding of the theories you are trying to debunk, including the Cosmic Microwave Background.

I was wrong when I said there were four fundamental forces in the universe. There are actually five.

Force ------------------ Particle that Transmits that Force

gravity ----------------- Graviton (Theoretical Particle)

electromagnetic ------- Photon

weak nuclear force ---- Weak Gauge Bosons

strong nuclear force --- Gluon

Ignorance --------------- The Internet

I am not signing onto the Plasma Cosmology cult, but I have no problem with you hanging out there if that is what you want. Unfortunately for you, no one here is buying what you are selling.

Tell me, what transmits the force of gravity? A hypothetical graviton you have never discovered? Never experimented with? How's LIGO doing with finding those gravitational waves doing? Experiments with plasma in a laboratory have actually reproduced all the effects you attribute to gravity, with verifiable experimental results. How's your search for cold dark matter going, oops, that's warm dark matter now isn't it, since CDM was shown not to work. Even to make your theory of a universe held together by gravity you have to make up invisible undetectable substances to make it work then place it in exactly the right spots, even though it should be everywhere. Then because that destroys your expansion theory you have to make up dark energy to counteract the dark matter. 96% of your universe is made up of matter undetectable, while plasma theory simple uses what 99.99% of what the universe is composed of.

Yes I am sure you think the following site is a cult even though its by one of the premier scientists today.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com

Yes, your journals will print anything gravity related, even if its explaining parallel universes as a reason to the CMB, it doesn't matter how fantastical it is as long as it doesn't disagree with current theory, but submit anything electrical and denied.

You will accept something undetected, unobservable and unfalsifiable as fact, yet even with direct laboratory evidence you deny. That sure sounds scientific to me. And you wonder why such fantastic things need to be invented everytime a new discovery is made. because every new discovery contradicts your theory, so you make up things to save it instead of wondering what may be wrong with the theory in the first place.

But I understand finances and the billions that went into securing jobs for LIGO projects and the like, even when they have yet to produce one result you just get more funding to continue. CERN showed the Higgs Bosun and cold dark matter was unfounded, so it had to give some reason to continue the funding, and what better than a possibly faster than light result. Now we'll have to build another. The entire reason CERN was built went out with supersymetry, but that doesn;t phase you one bit. LIGO can't detect anything and lauds the finding of nothing as success. LOL, I need to switch to your theory so I can make more money by lauding failures as successes. Or writing books on non-existent Black Holes or neutron stars, seems a good money making scheme nowadays. But that's ok, time will tell. And when this cosmology dies as have all others, you'll jump on the bandwagon as all have always done and be saying, I always knew it was like this as has happened with every cosmology shift. Every new cosmology has always been the minoruty until it became the majority. You are about at the end of your rope in being able to cover up the errors as new discovers keep coming in. What's next to save the theory, Strange matter? Ooops we already have that. Running out of invisible stuff arn't you.