My Zero Gravity Challenge

[SelfSim]

Do you see why I call these "challenges" now?

Would it have been better if I would have said:

My take is that zero gravity does not exist.

One electron at the edge of the universe exerts a pull on an electron at the the opposite edge.

No .. because your reasoning is now absent.
The reasoning behind your mere opinion, (including most of the vote count opinions), is opaque .. yet this is what matters more than the outcome (ie: opinion).

 

[durangodawood]

Since this thread has put the emphasis on gravity as being a force, general relativity makes it very clear gravity does not exist.
Gravity can be thought of as a fictitious or fake force which can only be experienced by observers in accelerated frames of reference.
Inertial observers or observers in stationary frames or frames moving at a constant velocity do not experience gravity.
A non technical explanation for this was given in the video in my previous post.

I'm trying to consider gravity as either a force or an effect of "deformed" space. If there's a frame of reference where the effect won't be experienced in any sense, then.... Hmm I might have to reconsider my vote.

Clearly a lot depends just on how we talk about the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

No .. because your reasoning is now absent.
The reasoning behind your mere opinion, (including most of the vote count opinions), is opaque .. yet this is what matters more than the outcome (ie: opinion).

Sutchee seff.

 

[sjastro]

I'm trying to consider gravity as either a force or an effect of "deformed" space. If there's a frame of reference where the effect won't be experienced in any sense, then.... Hmm I might have to reconsider my vote.

Clearly a lot depends just on how we talk about the question.

An inertial frame of reference.
Using the equivalence principle an accelerated frame is equivalent to a stationary frame in a gravitational field.
Since an inertial frame is not accelerated there is no gravitational field hence there is no gravity to distort space-time.
Since gravity in this sense is not even real but a fictitious force, there is no Newtonian version of gravity as a real attractive force either.

It should be emphasized that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are different models of gravity.
General relativity is a vastly superior version but most of celestial mechanics is built around Newtonian gravity for its simplicity.
Getting men to the moon or describing the orbits of binary stars around a centre of gravity is done using Newton's version.
The simplicity of Newton's version is the mathematics based on linear differential equations.
The equations of general relativity are non linear making them near impossible to solve directly.

Albert will be turning in grave as mathematicians have "linearized" general relativity which can only be solved with the use of supercomputers.
While general relativity can predict the propagation of gravitational waves through space-time which could also be a topic of discussion in this thread, the creation of gravitational waves and their theoretical waveforms is a product of "linearized general relativity" and supercomputers which ultimately led to their discovery.

 

[sjastro]

Do you see why I call these "challenges" now?

Would it have been better if I would have said:

My take is that zero gravity does not exist.

One electron at the edge of the universe exerts a pull on an electron at the the opposite edge.

OK let's turn this into a real challenge instead of one your pseudo-challenges.
Since forces add and subtract and the electrostatic repulsive force is over 1000000000000000000000000000000000000X greater than the attractive gravitational force, how do these electrons exert a pull on each other?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK let's turn this into a real challenge instead of one your pseudo-challenges.
Since forces add and subtract and the electrostatic repulsive force is over 1000000000000000000000000000000000000X greater than the attractive gravitational force, how do these electrons exert a pull on each other?

If I tie a mile-long thread to the back of a car, then accelerate it to 100 mph; at the point where the thread breaks, is the car doing 100.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 mph?

I doubt it.

According to Lorentz, wouldn't it be slowed to 99.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000999999999999 or thereabouts?

 

[sjastro]

If I tie a mile-long thread to the back of a car, then accelerate it to 100 mph; at the point where the thread breaks, is the car doing 100.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 mph?

I doubt it.

According to Lorentz, wouldn't it be slowed to 99.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000999999999999 or thereabouts?

This nonsensical non response would do a politician proud.
Here is the question again which is based on data.
To give you an indication of the enormous difference between the gravitational and electrostatic forces between a pair of electrons, the magnitude of the coupling constants G and k alone highlights the difference.

For the gravitational force;

G = 6.6743 x 10⁻¹¹ m³.kg⁻¹.s⁻²

For the electrostatic force;

k = 8.987 x 10⁹ N.m².C⁻²

As an exercise all you have to do is include the mass of the electron and their charge into each equation and calculate the ratio, the distance r cancels out.

Here is the question again, how do you get a pair of electrons exert a gravitational pull when the electrostatic repulsive force exceeds it by a factor of over 1000000000000000000000000000000000000X?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is the question again, how do you get a pair of electrons with the added proviso they can be at any distance apart, exert a gravitational pull when their electrostatic repulsive force is over 1000000000000000000000000000000000000X greater?

QV please (and note the source):

But to get rid of it entirely we would have to go an infinite distance away from anything with any mass.

SOURCE

Your "electrostatic repulsive force" is merely overcoming that pull.

An airplane is subjected to four forces:

• thrust must overcomes drag
• lift must overcomes gravity

Once lift overcomes gravity, it doesn't mean gravity is gone. It has simply been overcome.

 

[sjastro]

QV please (and note the source):


SOURCE

Your "electrostatic repulsive force" is merely overcoming that pull.

An airplane is subjected to four forces:

• thrust must overcomes drag
• lift must overcomes gravity

Once lift overcomes gravity, it doesn't mean gravity is gone. It has simply been overcome.

Are you utterly bereft of basic comprehensions skills?
This is about the forces between a pair of electrons not microgravity or airplanes.
Forces add and subtract.
If you have a gravitational force of 1 in this direction ----> and a repulsive electrostatic force of 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 acting in the opposite direction <-------, at the very least what do you think is the going to be the direction when summing the gravitational and electrostatic forces between electrons?
Even though the gravitational force is still there the summed force is acting in the opposite direction because the electrostatic force is vastly greater than the gravitational force.

It is complete utter nonsense to talk about the gravitational pull between electrons when the electrons are being pushed apart by the summed force.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even though the gravitational force is still there ..

Thank you.

That's all I needed to hear.

Like pulling teeth.

(And you wonder why I called this a challenge?)

 

[sjastro]

Thank you.

That's all I needed to hear.

Like pulling teeth.

(And you wonder why I called this a challenge?)

What do you think a gravitational pull means?
They are your words not mine and describe
an observation or measurement.
You will never observe electrons being pulled together or measuring the force between them as inward directing.

You have the opportunity of learning something instead your "challenges" are nothing more than anti science rants based on ignorance and bigotry.

 

[AV1611VET]

... your "challenges" are nothing more than anti science rants based on ignorance and bigotry.

FYI twelve people voted in my "anti-science" poll.

Did you?

 

[SelfSim]

FYI twelve people voted in my "anti-science" poll.

Is that what it was about?

Oh well, the number doesn't really mean anything .. I mean, given that you weren't being honest with the voters that that was your intention all along(?)

Did you?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Please do then.

Remember, it's your civic duty.

 

[SelfSim]

Please do then.

Remember, it's your civic duty.

I withdraw my 'citizenship' for that cause.

 

[AV1611VET]

I withdraw my 'citizenship' for that cause.

Science can do weird things to a fella, can't it?

 

[SelfSim]

Science can do weird things to a fella, can't it?

It excels at exposing con jobs.

 

[sjastro]

FYI twelve people voted in my "anti-science" poll.

Did you?

So says the guy with the "Science Can Take a Hike" avatar.
By repeating the nonsense two electrons on opposite sides of the universe exert a pull after it was shown the gravitational force cannot even be measured or worse still gravity as a force does not exist in general relativity indicates your willful ignorance is alive and kicking in this thread.
The bigotry part may not be as obvious but history shows your "challenges" are motivated by anti-intellectualism in the form of ridiculing science.

If it wasn't for your history of ridiculing science in previous "challenges" your might have received a greater number of votes.

 

[AV1611VET]

By repeating the nonsense two electrons on opposite sides of the universe exert a pull after it was shown the gravitational force cannot even be measured ...

Then measure it.

Here's the formula -- just plug in the numbers:

G x mass of electron x mass of electron divided by (47,000,000,000 x 47,000,000,000 light years).

Piece of cake, if you know the specific numbers.

 

[sjastro]

Then measure it.

Here's the formula -- just plug in the numbers:

G x mass of electron x mass of electron divided by (47,000,000,000 x 47,000,000,000 light years).

Piece of cake, if you know the specific numbers.

Rather than convincing me you know what you are talking about, your post is a further confirmation of your profund ignorance.

Error No.1:- You are not measuring the value but calculating it.
A primary school educated 8 year old would know the difference.
Error No.2:- You don’t use 47,000,000,000 light years in the calculations which is the radius distance of an electron from the observer.
Instead for electrons at diametrically opposite ends of the universe you use the diameter which is twice the radius and is 94,000,000,000 light years.
Error No.3:- Since G is expressed in units of N kg⁻² m⁻² you convert light years into meters before doing the calculation.

It’s a good thing you didn’t perform the calculation; here is the value.

F = 0.70 x 10⁻¹²⁴ N or F= 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007 N.

Even you should be able to comprehend a calculated value of this magnitude for any phenomenon is beyond measurement.
The most accurate theory in physics is quantum electrodynamics with accuracies within ten parts of a billion or 0.00000001.

You are hopelessly out of your depth when you can’t even differentiate a measurement from a calculation.