|
| Thread: A hoax called gravity. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 23:29, 25 Jun 2008.
|
A hoax called gravity.
Argue this. "What goes up must come down"
What it realy is, and I've proved it today (not today) that its really "what goes out, comes back in"
Think about only one thing for a brief moment. Oxygen is in water, oxygen, is in the aereosphere, oxygen is not in space. THINK please.
There are three different levels of this oxygen.
No oxygen.
Only oxygen.
And oxygen mixed with hydrogyn (water then)
There are also 3 seperate types of movement.
Floating aimlessly
sinking to the ground
and floating in water, drowning too after awhile.
If I have to say anymore to reach only one person saying "hey, that makes more sense than expecting the whole earth to have the power to pull, everything down", if I have to say any more to make gravity look like nonsense, then I will destroy the world 
____________
What are you up to
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:32 PM |
|
|
Obey gravity. It's the law.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:49 PM |
|
|
What this sounds like is Aristotlean view of physics. Which is known to be false.
Quote:
Obey gravity. It's the law.
Lol.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 12:34 AM |
|
|
Graveity is bound to the cores of the planets, and stuff like oksygen is soo ligth it goes straight on to it(over time).
So, if you are far enogh of a planet you do not have to obey the laws of gravity
____________
|
|
popular_feeds
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:46 AM |
|
|
whatever. talk like that is too pedantic and not practical for everyday conversation.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Graveity is bound to the cores of the planets, and stuff like oksygen is soo ligth it goes straight on to it(over time).
So, if you are far enogh of a planet you do not have to obey the laws of gravity
Wrong. The core of a planet is the net center of gravity, but there isn't anything special about the center of a planet other than it being the center of the planet. And if you get far enough away, gravity will still affect you, but very little. But if you are in orbit (perpetual free fall), then you'll be in zero gravity even if you're relatively close to the Earth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
sith_of_ziost
Promising
Supreme Hero
Scouting the Multiverse
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:10 AM |
|
|
Well, let the wisdom of sith of ziost enlighten you.
All bodies in the universe emit a small gravitational field. Planets, stars, people, even little specs of dirt. However, in order to surmount a mentionable amount of attraction, it has to be a large body.
Dilemma 1 - Does gravity come from the center of the planet?
No. Gravity is generated by the emmense mass of the earth, 598 followed by 22 zeroes worth of kg. That's a lot. It generates a gravitational field of -9.81 m/s every second exponentially at ground level. The higher you go from the earth, the less gravity is because of your distance from the Earth's Center of gravity (the core). Reciprocally, the farther you go into the center of the Earth, the stronger gravity gets because the center of gravity is closer, and the pull is stronger.
Dilemma 2 - Does gravity ever become irrelevant?
Not in a physical sense. Although Earth is an extreme distance from Jupiter, Jupiter exerts its gravitic forces on Earth's tides believe it or not. It also pulls comets off collision courses with Earth.
Dilemma 3 - Why do ships orbit?
An orbit is caused by the power of force exert in a direction perpendicular to the Earth. A shuttle orbiting the Earth must obtain a critical velocity first to escape Earth's gravity, then use it as a net to keep in on course. Since an object in space is in a constant state of freefall, it must keep a velocity to balance its trajectory.
I'd love to explain anything else that confuses people. I love physics.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 06:17 AM |
|
|
What about Carbon Dioxide?
Silicon Dioxide?
Nitrous Oxide?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Reciprocally, the farther you go into the center of the Earth, the stronger gravity gets because the center of gravity is closer, and the pull is stronger.
This is in fact not true. As you go into Earth, gravity will increase because the amount of mass "below" you decreases. This does not relate well to everyday impressions of the world around us, however, as presure will rise once we start going into the Earth.
In truth, Gravity will decrease linearly as you go into Earth: This is because, while the distance decreases, and Gravity depends on the inverse of distance to the second power (r^-2), mass ~ volume also decreases, and as volume depends on distance to the third power (r^3), the decreasing mass (volume) will overrule the decreasing distance by one power of r.
This also makes logical sense: Once you're in the centre of the Earth, you will feel no gravitational pull from Earth (there's equally much on each side of you, so the parts negate each other) - i.e. gravity is 0 at r = 0. You will feel a lot of pressure, however!
While I'm at it, I should address the master post also.
You're argument is wrong, obviously, and the reason for this is that you don't take into account the pressure of the gass.
Now let's evaluate the phenomenon of pressure in a gas, which we can consider as the force exherted by the molecules on each other when they bump into each other. The denser the gass is, the more likely molecules are to bump into each other, and hence the higher is the pressure. Pressure in a gass will have the effect of making the gass try to expand in any direction possible in order to reduce the pressure.
Let's then consider the model you propose above. What you say is that the downword pull of gravity should make all the air in the atmosphere sink towards the surface of the Earth. Obviously, if this happened, we would have a very thin layer of immensely dense gass lying around on the surface of Earth. It should also be quite obvious that the pressure will rise to great levels in such a gass, which will cause it to try to expand.
Obviously, expanding downwards is not an option, as there's solid earth; expanding sidewards does not make a difference, as there's also dense gass here. This leaves us with upwards expansion - i.e. work against the pull of gravity. Now - will this be possible? Yes, if the pressure is big enough, the force of the pressure will be greater than the gravitational force, and the air will expand. Thus, an equilibrium is established.
Now let's consider how the atmosphere looks: Closest to Earth, gravity is pretty strong, and as we move away from Earth, gravity decreases. This means, that by the surface of the Earth, we need high pressure to overcome the pull of gravity, and hence the gass needs to be pretty dense for equilibrium to excist. Higher in the atmosphere, gravity is decreasing, and thus by analogy, pressure to establish equilibrium decreases as we move away from Earth. What we should see is an atmosphere that grows thinner and thinner as we move away from the planet. Does this sound familiar?
As we come a very long distance from Earth, the gravitational pull starts to become insignificant compared to the thermal and kinetic energy of the molecules. At this distance, Earth is effectively no longer able to hold on to it's atmosphere, and possibly, gass escapes into the (almost) vacuum of what we call space. Now as the outer layers of the atmosphere are very thin, the amount of gass escaping this way are probably not big (otherwise, we would have no atmosphere left by now, which is not the case, obviously!), and we also receive input the other way in form of dust, ice, etc. from cosmic material.
As a sidenote, one should notice that the capability of a planet to hold on to an atmosphere depends on two things: First off, the size of the planet. The larger the planet, the larger a gravitational pull, and hence, better capacity to hold on to stuff. Secondly, this depends on which molecule we're talking about. The gravitational force acts between two bodies and depends on the mass of both of them. Thus, Earth is big enough to hold one to heavy molecules (N2, CO2), intermediate molecules (O2) but not light molecules (H2). Mars, on the other hand, is only half the diametre of Earth, hence only 1/8th of it's mass. Mars has only gravitational pull sufficient to hold on to heavy molecules, and only has a thin atmosphere of CO2. Moon has no atmosphere, it's not massive enough to hold on to eaven heavy gasses. Notice, that had Earth been sufficiently massive to hold on to light molecules like H2, we would have been a gassy planet like Jupiter and Saturn!
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 08:38 PM |
|
|
|
I will concede my stance if I feel I am 100% wrong, but I think gravity is only theoretical. A lot of things are just theoretical but scientists seem to think they have the wisdom of the ages.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I will concede my stance if I feel I am 100% wrong, but I think gravity is only theoretical.
Of course it is. And I think that any half decent scientist knows that. In fact almost everything we know is just a theory. A theory that so far matches everything we observe. However, every now and then something new is discovered (gravity, electromagnetic fields, atoms etc.) and the theory is expanded or even changed to explain the new observation.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 09:15 PM |
|
|
Beside the reproducible stuff, there is another flaw in 'observable' stuff in general: they need to be quantifiable. Now I am not talking about dimensionless or numberless stuff, but even numbers beside the real number set. I mean, we can't quantify (or compare) two complex numbers (at least so each comparison is unique) like we do with real numbers. Maybe they are 'incomprehensible' and 'imaginary'. But of course observations without being quantifiable are dismissed as illusions. We can't measure complex numbers even though math says they can exist and are useful.
What if the 'amount' of force, for example, is complex and not real? And maybe if it's complex it affects space-time differently, but we haven't observed it yet (or maybe we did, but was regarded as illusion)?
Ok sorry if this was off-topic, just my pointless rant.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I will concede my stance if I feel I am 100% wrong, but I think gravity is only theoretical.
Of course it is. And I think that any half decent scientist knows that.
Actually gravity is a fact. And a theory.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:45 PM |
|
|
Yeah, right. We all know that gravity is actually caused by the Sex and the City movie sucking so much it has created an omnidirectional vacuum that drags everything closer to its inane existence.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Beside the reproducible stuff, there is another flaw in 'observable' stuff in general: they need to be quantifiable. Now I am not talking about dimensionless or numberless stuff, but even numbers beside the real number set. I mean, we can't quantify (or compare) two complex numbers (at least so each comparison is unique) like we do with real numbers. Maybe they are 'incomprehensible' and 'imaginary'. But of course observations without being quantifiable are dismissed as illusions. We can't measure complex numbers even though math says they can exist and are useful.
What if the 'amount' of force, for example, is complex and not real? And maybe if it's complex it affects space-time differently, but we haven't observed it yet (or maybe we did, but was regarded as illusion)?
Ok sorry if this was off-topic, just my pointless rant.
We can compare the modulus of complex numbers, just like we compare the absolute value of real numbers. I don't really see the difference.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:04, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
We can compare the modulus of complex numbers, just like we compare the absolute value of real numbers. I don't really see the difference.
By that logic i and 1 have the same comparison results? I said a unique comparison 
(or even worse, -1 is equal to 1? or greater, or smaller than 1?)
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually gravity is a fact. And a theory.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
I mean, by definition a fact is something 100% true, while a theory is something that is supposedly true but doesn't have quite enough hard evidence to become a fact... isn't it?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We can compare the modulus of complex numbers, just like we compare the absolute value of real numbers. I don't really see the difference.
By that logic i and 1 have the same comparison results? I said a unique comparison
(or even worse, -1 is equal to 1? or greater, or smaller than 1?)
Numerically, -1 is equal to 1: |-1| = |1| = 1. Just like |i| = 1. As I see it, that makes just as able (or just as unable) to compare complex numbers as we are to compare rational numbers to each other.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 01:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:06, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Numerically, -1 is equal to 1: |-1| = |1| = 1. Just like |i| = 1. As I see it, that makes just as able (or just as unable) to compare complex numbers as we are to compare rational numbers to each other.
Ok, so how is i, smaller or greater than 1?
What about -1? Is it smaller or greater than 1?
EDIT: It would be interesting to see something like: "How many liters does this bottle have?" - "Around 2+3i" 
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 02:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, so how is i, smaller or greater than 1?
What about -1? Is it smaller or greater than 1?
EDIT: It would be interesting to see something like: "How many liters does this bottle have?" - "Around 2+3i"
1, -1, i, and -1 all have the same modulus, which is 1. Numerically, they are the same. Of course, they are not the same number.
This was just to say that we CAN compare these numbers - but of course, it's a different way than saying 1 > -1.
____________
What will happen now?
|
| |
|
|
