Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Gravitation

Gravitation

Postby JPA » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:39 am

An accelerometer with sensor mass does not measure any acceleration in free fall. That is, it can not measurea gravitational acceleration.
On the Earth's surface, however, an accelerometer measures a Newtonian acceleration from the bottom to the top!
Why???
JPA
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am

 

Re: Gravitation

Postby JohnDuffield » Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:24 pm

I'm not sure what you mean, JPA. Can you re-state what you said about the accelerometer on the Earth's surface? Do you mean an accelerometer just sitting motionless on the ground? As per the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer]Wikipedia scenario[/I]?

"For example, an accelerometer at rest on the surface of the Earth will measure an acceleration due to Earth's gravity, straight upwards (by definition) of g ≈ 9.81 m/s². By contrast, accelerometers in free fall (falling toward the center of the Earth at a rate of about 9.81 m/s²) will measure zero".

The falling accelerometer measures zero because there's no force acting on it. Whilst we talk about the "force" of gravity it isn't a force in the Newtonian sense. When you exert a force on something such as a car, you do work on it. You make it move and you add energy to it. But if you were to drop that car gravity doesn't do work on it. It merely converts some of the car's mass-energy into kinetic energy. Once that's dissipated you're left with a mass deficit. Again see Wikipedia:

"Classically, a bound system is at a lower energy level than its unbound constituents. Its mass must be less than the total mass of its unbound constituents..."
JohnDuffield
Site Admin
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Gravitation

Postby JPA » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:08 pm

An acceleration meter at rest on the ground indicates a Newton acceleration upwards. This results in our weight.
Why is there still a need for attraction?
JPA
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am

Re: Gravitation

Postby JohnDuffield » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:32 pm

It's because of the wave nature of matter. Remember electron spin, then think of an electron as light going round and round. Then simplify it to light going round a square path. The horizontal portions bend downwards because space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". Check this out:

https://bogpaper.wordpress.com/2013/10/ ... d-gravity/
JohnDuffield
Site Admin
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Gravitation

Postby JPA » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:33 am

What a fantasy.
Natural phenomena consists of causes to effects of objects involved in it, according to a functional principle. Natural phenomena functions in themselves and are therefore also physically understandable to explain in themselves to anyone who is interested. If one can not, one do not know. To use external phenomena is only an expression of ignorance of the problem.
The onliest question which here is: comes our weight from a Newtonian acceleration from the bottom upwards, or by pressing of a gravitational force from the top downwards. There is to ask neither an electron spin nor a curved space, in whatever dimensions at all, but only measurements to/with the involved objects.
JPA
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am

Re: Gravitation

Postby JohnDuffield » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:46 pm

Our weight comes from the "frustrated" motion of the light that makes up matter in inhomogeneous space.
JohnDuffield
Site Admin
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Gravitation

Postby wlminex » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:58 pm

An acceerometer sitting on the earth's surface (static, non-moving relative to earth's surface) will, IMO, measure nothing since there is no 'relative' acceleration. OTOH, IF a black hole (or other massive object) were to pass within 'detection range' of the otherwise static (relative to earth) accelerometer, some sort of detection (of acceleration) would be measured because the 'equilibrium state' of the earth-accelerometer system would be disturbed.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Gravitation

Postby JPA » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:31 am

Oh God, where am I?
In the middle age?

An accelerometer, aligned in the vertical direction, indicates acceleration from the bottom to the top.
The question is just why?
Einstein said that our weight is as much as the weight of a person in an elevator accelerating steadily in empty space. And accelerometers on the earth prove exactly that in the vertical direction, ie the direction of the vector of the weight force.
Wanted is the explanation for this and not reasons for a denial of this fact.

A recognized physicist (name forgotten) said times: it is not that they (the students) do not understand the solution, they do not understand the problem.

One can not solve problems by splitting them and pushing them somewhere else.
JPA
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am

Re: Gravitation

Postby JPA » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:55 am

The only thing, that can be measured by what Einstein said, is, that our weight is produced by an upward acceleration. Everything else from Einstein is possible only mathematically, but this is no proof, that nature does so.
The acceleration upwards is indicated by each accelerometer which operates with a sensor mass. The solution to the question of what is gravitation can only be achieved by using this fact. A denial of this fact leads directly to pseudophysics.

An ether would solve the problem in no time at all, but Einstein managed to get it off. On the other hand, he admitted a content in the space vacuum, but he could not say more ether to it. A material content, whatever it may be (possibly even the Higgs boson), has long been recognized by thinking physicists and is confirmed daily in nuclear technology.
For solve the mystery of gravity is not to ask Einstein, but nature. And in it, falling is a very simple mechanical process which does not require the existence of light or anything else for. That light also falls, as Richard Feynman correctly said, means only that that also falls, to which light belongs.

A sensible question about falling would be: who or what takes a body down with it, without the body resists with its mass inertia?

Mathematics can help advance in physical research. At the end, however, there must be a thingly explanation for every natural phenomenon, including falling, that is, for gravitation too, which refers only to the participating objects and their interactions according to verbal natural principles, understandable for everyone with interest!
JPA
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am


Return to Gravity and Relativity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred