Gravity differential diagram. last try

[scott_sieger]

Gravity differential diagram. "last try"

Hi guys,

I've attached a simple diagram of what I am thinking about.

regards gravitational differential

Can some one tell me why I am seeing a differential when every one is telling me there isn't?

The figures are not I repeat not actual they are based on an assumption of a global average. The temperature range is fictional.

It is only a hyperthetical and is only a model used in exploring this subject.

PLease tell me if you cannot access the attachment (it's the first time I've used this feature)

 

[Andre]

I'm afraid it didn't work. I don't seem to see a detachment.

 

[Jonathan]

Darn...I just deleted the email you sent me about this, which had the attachment, a minute ago. Anyway, as I said to you I will say here: I think the previous thread on this subject came to the conclusion that the temperature differential, which is a prerequisite for the effect, has been experimentally verified not to exist.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, I see what you mean now - as the atmosphere expands and contracts, the Earth would become lopsided. Your logic is fine, but the effect just doesn't exist in any meaningful way. The atmosphere does expand and contract, but only very slightly. Also remember that the mass of the atmosphere is tiny compared to the mass of the earth. And finally, if this effect did exist, it would just push the atmosphere around, not the entire earth.

Also scott, if this effect were real, it would manifest itself in the other bodies in the solar system. It does not. Nor does it explain the rotation of the sun.

Scott, what is wrong with the conventional theory on the rotation of the earth? Simple conservation of angular momentum. It quite adequately explains where the energy came from for the rotation and revolution of the planets and other bodies in the solar system.

 

[scott_sieger]

Russ.

Could it also be inferred that if one increases the temperature range that would also increase the differential there fore the torsional effect?

The COAM theory is great... fine... does it explain what the energy of inertia is. Does it explain why it works not just that it works?

Why does a body of mass conform to COAM. What is the energy involved?

If we understood what inertia is we would be able to modify it...but we dont' and as yet we can't.

so I am not disputing the COAM i am just suggesting that it lacks depth.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
Could it also be inferred that if one increases the temperature range that would also increase the differential there fore the torsional effect?

Yes.

The COAM theory is great... fine... does it explain what the energy of inertia is. Does it explain why it works not just that it works?

Yes.

Why does a body of mass conform to COAM. What is the energy involved?

Not sure I understand: Are you asking why something in the universe conforms to a law of the universe? Because it is a law of the universe. Its axiomatic. Now don't confuse this to mean we humans decide what the laws of the universe are - they are inherrent properties of the universe and we can only discover them.

And the energy involved? What do you mean. Where does it come from? It comes from the gas cloud not being perfectly balanced/symmetrical before collapse.

If we understood what inertia is we would be able to modify it...but we dont' and as yet we can't.

There are a lot of things about the universe that we can't modify no matter how much we want to - they are properties inherrent to the universe. Inertia/inertial mass is one of those properties.

so I am not disputing the COAM i am just suggesting that it lacks depth.

It certainly isn't a theory of everything, but what it describes it describes rather well.

 

[Jonathan]

First, I want to say that I don't know what you all mean by COAM. Second, I know this is off topic, but Russ: How can you state that 'inertia is unchangable' as a fact given that we don't have a complete theory of everything? Stochastic Electrodynamics, though in its infancy, seems to point to that possibility.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Jonathan
First, I want to say that I don't know what you all mean by COAM

Conservation Of Angular Momentum. Took me a few minutes the first time he turned it into an acronym too.

Second, I know this is off topic, but Russ: How can you state that 'inertia is unchangable' as a fact given that we don't have a complete theory of everything? Stochastic Electrodynamics, though in its infancy, seems to point to that possibility.

That's not a theory I'm familiar with, Jonathan. Just to clarify though, I'm trying to keep things simple here - rest mass is an immutable property of an objetct, but relativistic mass can change. Clearly through Einstein's relativity you CAN change mass, but you got to walk before you can fly and I didn't want to get into that.

And though this is TD, I won't entertain the idea that 'since we don't know everything, doesn't that mean that anything is possible?' No, it doesn't. Thats a logical fallacy and I've had this conversation before (ask Ivan Seeking). Our understanding of things like gravity will certainly change as we search for a unified field theory, but that theory MUST still encompass GR/Newton based simply on the fact that they work in their particular domains.

 

[scott_sieger]

Russ,

I think what you say is quite reasonable. And I think I have fallen for the ole' defend a defence routine.

Originally I posted a hyperthetical that i wanted someone to agree or disagree with. For one reason or another we are now again discussing the validity of current thinking eg COAM. (sorry about the acronym)

I guess in future if i want to avoid a bun fight over theories I should refrain from defending somethng I didn't offend in the first place.

The thing is as you have said the logic is ok, but the application is suspect...fair point.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
Originally I posted a hyperthetical that i wanted someone to agree or disagree with. For one reason or another we are now again discussing the validity of current thinking eg COAM. (sorry about the acronym)

To expand on what I said in another thread, quite a bit of physics has theories describing the observed physical phenomenon. Any time you pose a hypothetical about a phenomenon that already has a theory to explain it, you initiate a competition with (or simply a discussion of) that theory. Whether you are aware of the existing theory or not is irrelevant.

Asymetric collaps and conservation of angular momentum (as a consequence of Newton's First Law) is the theory that explains the rotation of the earth.

Scott, I could simply say that your ideas are wrong and leave it at that - but how would that help? Its useless to say the idea is wrong unless I can tell you WHY: COAM is the reason why.

 

[Jonathan]

Still off topic: I didn't intend to say everything is possible, but until we have observed everything there is to observe, we can't be 100% certain, though we can get quite close. For example, we might discover a new phenomenon tomorrow that'll turn everything unpside down and we will have to come up with a new theory. Of course that theory is required to keep current theories as a simplification/ special case for certain types of occurances. So it is more of a matter of seeing if there are any phenomena were inertia is apparently changed, like for objects under extrememly low gravitational acceleration, were Newton (and Einstien?) breakdown and this is why MOND has been proposed.

 

[scott_sieger]

Hypothesis

When an iron object enters a magnetic field it's inertia does in fact change. It's inertia (spacial intensity) is now part of the magnetic field.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
Hypothesis

When an iron object enters a magnetic field it's inertia does in fact change. It's inertia (spacial intensity) is now part of the magnetic field.

Basis (evidence)?