A simple bench top experiment with GRAVITY . Is there anything there?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The piskies take a step back and look at how heavy you/the saucer is before they start pulling. They do this by freezing time so you can't measure it.

Yes , but I am serious . Unless someone can tell me what is causing that inward pressure , toward the centre of the earth. Is it Gravitons or what ?

 

It is clearly a torrent of something , going inward from outside the earth . Is it that a I quadrillion upon quadrillion of neutrinos heading in toward the centre of the earth . Giving a small pressure on my saucer atoms , and a massive pressure on me as they pass by at a constant rate as they are responsible for this constant gravitational acceleration? So that , if we were both released at the same moment in time , we ( saucer atoms and me ) would be swept along ,downward to the centre of the earth. If not neutrinos , some other very small particle ?

 

Or what ?

 

 

Mike

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

All anyone is going to say is what the maths says.

 

You've already expressed your desire for something more and been told that that's not science.

 

Therefore I'm sticking with the piskies.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

All anyone is going to say is what the maths says.

You've already expressed your desire for something more and been told that that's not science.

Therefore I'm sticking with the piskies.

.

Yes well maths says F=M x A . So :-

True the force that gravity needs to accelerate me ( M large ) can be calculated from this formulae. Similarly , for the

few atoms in the saucer F=M x A , this time ( M very small ) . So with acceleration being the same . The force required is substantially less.

 

So the incoming force from the neutrinos ( if they are what do it ? ) , distribute their force according to MASS value in order to cause common acceleration.

 

This is in keeping with current science , provided one accepts that some particles ,

( NEUTRINOS , or something else , Are in fact , PORING INTO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH )

 

Mike

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Neutrinos have nothing to do with it. Gravitons might be the force particle but we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

 

The mass is the important thing.

 

Even with gravitons, if we consider they are similar to photons in qed then pouring into the centre of the earth isn't the correct way of thinking about it. That's not how force exchange particles work. And as for whether that's actually happening or just a mathematical model that works, that's not good science works.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Neutrinos have nothing to do with it. Gravitons might be the force particle but we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

The mass is the important thing.

Even with gravitons, if we consider they are similar to photons in qed then pouring into the centre of the earth isn't the correct way of thinking about it. That's not how force exchange particles work. And as for whether that's actually happening or just a mathematical model that works, that's not good science works.

.

I do not know too much about gravitons ? Are they in abundance in the universe ? In sufficient quantity to pour into the centre of the earth , the way I describe ? Thus , so as to provide the distributed forces , I previously described , creating the same acceleration , but with different levels of force , on both the atoms in the saucer and me ?

 

Mike

 

Ref graviton :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

They wouldn't pour.

 

Gravitons are hypothetical force carriers for gravity. Potentially similar to virtual photons for qed.

Did you read the wiki article?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

They wouldn't pour.

Gravitons are hypothetical force carriers for gravity. Potentially similar to virtual photons for qed. Did you read the wiki article?

.

Yes , but I am going through it again , more thoroughly right now to see if it is capable of my double action on ..

 

.. me and ... the saucer atoms .

 

 

Mike

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Your double action thing, as in f=ma when a is constant f must change with m? That's pretty standard classical mechanics.

Any quantum theory will look like the classical in the classical domain.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Your double action thing, as in f=ma when a is constant f must change with m? That's pretty standard classical mechanics. Any quantum theory will look like the classical in the classical domain.

.

I do not quite understand , f (swapping with ) m.

Surely the standard equation

 

F = M x a F is force in Newton's. , M is mass in Kilograms , a is acceleration in meters per second per second ?

 

So the

...........Force can only apply to Gravity in this example

...........Mass can only apply to the atoms in the saucer, and/or the Body ( mine ) of flesh and bones.

...........Acceleration can only apply to the resultant movement of the masses.

 

Surely

I am of the belief the gravity , which is resulting ( even if only momentary) in attempted acceleration on both the atoms in the saucer and my body are :- ( even if one is milli grams , the other many Kilograms.)

 

As if by a flooding rushing river playing down on both myself and the saucer atoms , with an equal acceleration of ( 32 ft/sec/sec or 9.81 meters/sec/sec ) and if free to move would accelerate equally , side by side , down this flooding river . ( if only for a moment in time ) before the next moment in time ? As if we were made of the same substance . ACCELERATION is king in this situation ? Surely .

 

Mike

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

That's not how I'd describe it. We have no evidence for a flowing river the analogy.

 

F=ma, if m is different and a is constant which Newtonian gravity shows us will be the case for the saucers or you at on a working surface, then F must be changing. Put in some numbers for a and m and see how F changes.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That's not how I'd describe it. We have no evidence for a flowing river the analogy.

F=ma, if m is different and a is constant which Newtonian gravity shows us will be the case for the saucers or you at on a working surface, then F must be changing. Put in some numbers for a and m and see how F changes.

.

Yes but that is what I did many posts ago , just roughly showing that F was going to be very low with the few atoms in the saucer , and F was going to be very high with me . But the overall force is sufficient to sweep us both along , as if swept down stream by a river that is accelerating. The force developed around me , none the less is large , the force developed around the few atoms in the saucer is small. But we all go down the stream with the same acceleration? ( like Galileo 's heavy iron cannon ball and his light wooden ball, they both fell with identical acceleration,, down the tower ) . Unless I have got things hopelessly wrong ?

Same acceleration , different masses, different forces ?

Unless F = M x A does not work in this situation ? Or I took a wrong turn , somewhere ?

 

Mike

Edited September 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

I don't like the flowing river analogy but otherwise you seen to be OK so far.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't like the flowing river analogy but otherwise you seen to be OK so far.

.

That is purely to illustrate the idea , that both and all is being exposed to MOVING or PULLING or PUSHING ACCELERATING PHENOMENON ( all moving together with each other ) as an attempt to understand more of how GRAVITY is or works .

 

Mike

Edited September 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

You're not adding anything though. The discussion of the river implies a flowing medium. There's no evidence for such a medium. It might even be counter to things such as the MM experiment but you've not added a mathematical framework so it's impossible to say.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You're not adding anything though. The discussion of the river implies a flowing medium. There's no evidence for such a medium. It might even be counter to things such as the MM experiment but you've not added a mathematical framework so it's impossible to say.

.

Well I have three possible , ways in which constant , consistent , induced acceleration is immediately possible . If we can not go with the streaming down , from above? Which is the remaining third option. (3)

 

1) by constant attraction from below , affecting both ( saucer atoms and me ) . Such an attractive would need to suck , or attract us both down from bellow , like some ghastly ' fiendish demon ' from the underworld .

2) some strange distortion of ' space-time ' itself to curve in such a way as to reproduce this ' sucking down with constant acceleration ' .

But although I personally prefer this second option , it requires space- time to be ' something to be curved ' What quite is curved , I am at a loss with ? ( in view of the anti - medium lobby )

3) streaming down of very miniature particle from above ( gravitons , neutrinos etc )

 

 

Mike

Edited September 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

This isn't science. It's making up stories.

 

Also, you really need to reread the wp article on gravitons and read the one on neutrinos.

[swansont]

Yes , but I am serious . Unless someone can tell me what is causing that inward pressure , toward the centre of the earth. Is it Gravitons or what ?

 

 

 

In one model it would be gravitons. They would probably be emitted by the earth, not flowing into the center. But we have no way to test that this is reality (if someone got the model to work) — we can only test if things behave according to the model.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This isn't science. It's making up stories.

Also, you really need to reread the wp article on gravitons and read the one on neutrinos.

.

Yes but surely any research scientist, has to make up speculative stories , in order to have a range of options to test and possibly reject , until they hit on the one that is near to a solution . And then refine the technique to home in , on a possible solution . Or find nothing at all . Surely .! I agree on the reading of gravitons and neutrinos . Unfortunately this weekend has been with 1 wife ... 4 daughters ...2 female grandchildren+ 1 male grandson , a female Jack Russell ( notice mainly all female ) . It's a killer !

 

Mike

In one model it would be gravitons. They would probably be emitted by the earth, not flowing into the center. But we have no way to test that this is reality (if someone got the model to work) we can only test if things behave according to the model.

.

O.k. I have heard from a local scientist , that ' gravitons ' are on the forefront of research , to do with gravity . Have you any choice aspects to do with gravitons and earths gravity , that I should home in on ?

Particularly ,on this issue of pulling both the atoms in the Saucer, and myself , at the same time , with the same acceleration? Down towards the centre of the earth ?

 

Mike

Edited September 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Gravitons and Neutrinos .

 

I have just tried to have a first pass read through of the Wikipedia references to both : Gravitons and Neutrinos.

 

This is not easy reading or definitive in its explanations .

 

I will attempt to find some more thorough explanation .

 

In the mean time if anyone has an explanation of either or both of these particles ( GRAVITONS) and ( NEUTRINOS ) . And how they may interact with my example of particle interaction on the subject of GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION or some other effects on normal matter ?

 

I would be grateful .

 

Mike

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Which phenomenon , particles , or forces causes the two separate ,different masses to move downward toward the centre of the earth with identicle acceleration ? If released ? How do they act .? And how does it work ?

 

.

 

Mike

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

So the first thing about gravity coming out of this experiment , is , rather than gravity being some massive force , necessarily , it is a fixed value acceleration

 

It is because

1) You can treat the mass of the Earth as a constant; and

2) You can ignore the inverse square law on the distances you are dealing with.

 

This is why we can describe the force of gravity on Earth as g = 9.8 ms^-2. But, note that it does vary from place to place and over time. This is an important tool to studying geology (for example, "seeing" what is going on inside volcanoes). You could, in principle, use the changing rate of your spinning plates to measure these changes.

 

 

So it's the curvature of ' space time ' set up by the earth is what is acting to push those ( attract those ) two different items ( me and the few atoms ) towards the centre of the earth.

 

Yeah. Kind of...

[geordief]

 

It is because

1) You can treat the mass of the Earth as a constant; and

2) You can ignore the inverse square law on the distances you are dealing with.

 

This is why we can describe the force of gravity on Earth as g = 9.8 ms^-2. But, note that it does vary from place to place and over time. This is an important tool to studying geology (for example, "seeing" what is going on inside volcanoes). You could, in principle, use the changing rate of your spinning plates to measure these changes.

 

 

.

If ,as a thought experiment the mass of the earth was to change noticeably ,would an observer in another frame of reference ,say something free falling from the moon towards the centre of the Earth notice no acceleration?

 

So that (if I am right) from the FOR of the Earth ,the body approaching it - that body's acceleration **- would appear to vary with every change in mass (no idea how such a thing could be accomplished,if at all) but from the FOR of the infalling object or observer it would appear as if there was no acceleratiion "onboard" but the Earth would appear to be accelerating towards the observer or object....

 

**Edited to improve some clumsy language

Edited September 19, 2016 by geordief

[Strange]

If ,as a thought experiment the mass of the earth was to change noticeably ,would an observer in another frame of reference ,say something free falling from the moon towards the centre of the Earth notice no acceleration?

I *think* someone in free fall would notice jerk (is that the right word: change in acceleration) but I don't really know...

[geordief]

I *think* someone in free fall would notice jerk (is that the right word: change in acceleration) but I don't really know...

Can I take it ,though that the thought experiment is entirely impossible?(and so nothing can be inferred from it really) ?

 

Or might something free falling towards and in close enough proximity to a merging Binary Black Hole be a good test object ?

[swansont]

Gravitons and Neutrinos .

 

I have just tried to have a first pass read through of the Wikipedia references to both : Gravitons and Neutrinos.

 

This is not easy reading or definitive in its explanations .

 

I will attempt to find some more thorough explanation .

 

In the mean time if anyone has an explanation of either or both of these particles ( GRAVITONS) and ( NEUTRINOS ) . And how they may interact with my example of particle interaction on the subject of GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION or some other effects on normal matter ?

 

I would be grateful .

 

Mike

 

 

 

Neutrinos are not responsible for gravity. From what we know, a graviton would be a spin-2 particle (Boson). Neutrinos are spin-1/2 (a fermion).

 

 

Your experiment, or any one you could conduct on your own, does not have the sensitivity to measure the interaction with either particle.