Gravitons and Push Gravity question.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />what is ordinary cases? for the solar system and satellites i know that Newtonian physics is applicable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Ordinary cases" are those I mentioned. When one applies a "law" on a scale where it has not yet been tested, such as the galactic or the quantum scale, there is no guaranty that it will continue to hold. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />what is ordinary cases? for the solar system and satellites i know that Newtonian physics is applicable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Ordinary cases" are those I mentioned. When one applies a "law" on a scale where it has not yet been tested, such as the galactic or the quantum scale, there is no guaranty that it will continue to hold. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

yet in a sense, since we have not gone to the Center of the Earth and as cosmicsurfer(mine shaft) and jim's original concept( the hole from one side to the other) has pointed out we do not know for sure whether a mass that is dropped through this complete chute will bobb.

and since we have not defined the distance above the surface in which this experiment takes place. i propose an experiment that takes place 10klm. above the surface of Earth, in which a mass of 10 tons of water(within a membrane)is dropped into this hole and of course is accelerated at 9m/sec^2.

know my point is that at some point gravity is overwhelmed in the opposite direction through the center of mass.

if gravity can not be overwhelmed through acceleration and/or movement then nothing would be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />yet in a sense, since we have not gone to the Center of the Earth and as cosmicsurfer (mine shaft) and jim's original concept (the hole from one side to the other) has pointed out we do not know for sure whether a mass that is dropped through this complete chute will bobb.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't agree. Our experience with innumerable similar cases is that the law of gravitation has never failed us. It is arguably the most accurate and reliable law of physics known. It makes a clear and definite prediction about what a body falling in a shaft through the Earth will do, and we have no logical, observational, or experimental reason to suspect any sudden failure of the law. How is a body in a shaft different in kind from a body passing between two larger masses? We've done the latter experiment many times.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And since we have not defined the distance above the surface in which this experiment takes place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We said "surface". But you are free to change the starting condition if you wish.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I propose an experiment that takes place 10km above the surface of Earth, in which a mass of 10 tons of water (within a membrane) is dropped into this hole and of course is accelerated at 9m/sec^2.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How does this differ from the other case? The falling body could just as easily have been 10 tons of water. So what?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now my point is that at some point gravity is overwhelmed in the opposite direction through the center of mass. If gravity can not be overwhelmed through acceleration and/or movement then nothing would be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have no idea what either of these sentences mean. It would take less than an hour for the body to fall to the center of the Earth, at which point its speed would be of order 5-10 km/s. That speed then slows on the way up the other side of the shaft. Escape velocity is never reached. So what do you mean by "gravity overwhelmed"? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suppose you might look at it that way. But I see these as accompanying phenomena, not causal phenomena. Centrifugal force is not the cause of clock-slowing, as can be seen in direct experiments. For example, clocks at various altitudes over the poles change their rates in response to changing gravitational potential, yet there is no centrifugal force. And clocks on planes flying in a line (no centrifugal force) or flying in a tight circle (with centrifugal force) tick at the same rate. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't like accompanying phenomena, it is not tidy enough. I will have to sleep on it.....probable not sleep, probable lie awake for a couple hours in my semi-conscious state where I think about these crazy things....

Thanks a lot Doctor, I guess you get what you ask for.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />yet in a sense, since we have not gone to the Center of the Earth and as cosmicsurfer (mine shaft) and jim's original concept (the hole from one side to the other) has pointed out we do not know for sure whether a mass that is dropped through this complete chute will bobb.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't agree. Our experience with innumerable similar cases is that the law of gravitation has never failed us. It is arguably the most accurate and reliable law of physics known. It makes a clear and definite prediction about what a body falling in a shaft through the Earth will do, and we have no logical, observational, or experimental reason to suspect any sudden failure of the law. How is a body in a shaft different in kind from a body passing between two larger masses? We've done the latter experiment many times.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">i just can not picture a mass slowing down and then bobbing at the earths center, for me it is one of those things i have to see with my own eyes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And since we have not defined the distance above the surface in which this experiment takes place. I propose an experiment that takes place 10km above the surface of Earth, in which a mass of 10 tons of water (within a membrane) is dropped into this hole and of course is accelerated at 9m/sec^2.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How does this differ from the other case? The falling body could just as easily have been 10 tons of water. So what?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">my thinking is that more the mass the more momentum therefore harder to slow down. i have always thought that Galileo's experiment was not high enough to prove that no matter the mass they fall at the same rate. for instance i have a hard time thinking that an object with the weight of a feather but not aerodynamicly disadvantaged and no atmospheric turbulence, would drop from 50,000 ft at the same rate as an plane. therefore the more mass the faster it would fall depending on the height, masses of objects to be compared and turbulance of air.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now my point is that at some point gravity is overwhelmed in the opposite direction through the center of mass. If gravity can not be overwhelmed through acceleration and/or movement then nothing would be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have no idea what either of these sentences mean. It would take less than an hour for the body to fall to the center of the Earth, at which point its speed would be of order 5-10 km/s. That speed then slows on the way up the other side of the shaft. Escape velocity is never reached. So what do you mean by "gravity overwhelmed"? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">what i mean here is that the 10 tons of water would be harder to slow down than say an object of the weight of a feather and therefore would have enough momentum to counter the effects of the force of gravity on the other side of this hole. and therefore continue on through slowing down but not coming to a stop and falling back.

for me in the end i would have to see this "bobbing" at the center of the earth with my own eyes, you could do all the math you want but i would still have to see it physically happen. your probably right Tom, but its one of those things i have to see to believe it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />i just can not picture a mass slowing down and then bobbing at the earths center, for me it is one of those things i have to see with my own eyes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your words here are rather different from what I explained will happen. This "bobbing" is from surface to surface through the entire shaft, not something that happens "at Earth's center" (your words). And the body speeds up while it is falling, and only starts to slow down again while it is rising up the other side of the shaft. How is that "slowing down" any different than the slowing down of a ball thrown upward from the surface?

I'm starting to suspect that your skepticism exists because we failed to communicate. If I can explain the picture correctly, you will see that it is the most natural and obvious way for the body to act, not something in any way odd or unexpected.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">my thinking is that more the mass the more momentum therefore harder to slow down. i have always thought that Galileo's experiment was not high enough to prove that no matter the mass they fall at the same rate. for instance i have a hard time thinking that an object with the weight of a feather but not aerodynamicly disadvantaged and no atmospheric turbulence, would drop from 50,000 ft at the same rate as an plane. therefore the more mass the faster it would fall depending on the height, masses of objects to be compared and turbulance of air.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay, you have the same intuition that everyone had before Galileo. But his experiment was plenty high for the weight difference involved. And the feather experiment you wanted to see has been done from a height of four feet by astronaut Scott of the Moon. You can find video on the internet of him simultaneously dropping a hammer and a feather in the 1/6 gravity environment of the Moon, and see with your own eyes that they fall at the same rate.

More directly to the point, we no longer depend on Galileo or lab experiments for that conclusion. Modern experiments are called "Eotvos experiments", and now show that different masses fall continuously at trhe same rate even from orbital heights, with a precision of better than 15 significant digits. Moreover, our orbit calculations would be drastically wrong if Jupiter and a small asteroid fell toward the Sun at different rates. But our highest precision observations show that all bodies of whatever mass fall toward any source of gravity at <i>exactly</i> the same rate. We don't even need to know the mass of the orbiting body (for example, a spacecraft) to determine its orbit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what i mean here is that the 10 tons of water would be harder to slow down than say an object of the weight of a feather and therefore would have enough momentum to counter the effects of the force of gravity on the other side of this hole. and therefore continue on through slowing down but not coming to a stop and falling back.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Part of the beauty of the Le Sage model of "pushing gravity" is that we can understand intuitively why bodies of any mass are affected the same by gravity. It is because gravitons are so small that they have access to each matter ingredient (like an atom, but much smaller) in the body. Because each matter ingredient is affected (pushed) by gravitons by an exactly equal amount, it just doesn't matter how many of them are put together to form the body.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">for me in the end i would have to see this "bobbing" at the center of the earth with my own eyes, you could do all the math you want but i would still have to see it physically happen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That "insight" comes with understanding. I recommend again the vastly improved understanding of gravitation available from the unique perspectives you will find in Meta Science and in "pushing gravity". Being able to see the how and why with the mind's eye can be more satisfying than seeing it happen with one's own eyes in cases when the latter seems inexplicable. -|Tom|-