NO.

You say AIR PRESSURE == GRAVITY

I say YOU ARE WRONG SIR


You have not responded, you are just MAKING THIS UP. Air pressure is a COMPLETELY SEPERATE PHENOMENON and yet you continue to claim they are one and the same.

YOU *ARE* WRONG.

When you admit this, I will be satisfied, and NOT BEFORE.

Actually, that's part of what's being debated. Whether or not they're mouths of wormholes, that is. Read some Hawking, I suggest.

How can we conclude that the car was accelerating in both instances? The force created by the motor was, indeed, the same, as was the mass of the car. So, in a sence, yes, you are correct that nothing within the confines of the chassis changed. but, the thing is, so what? how does this prove EF=MA wrong? With newtonian physics, as you should have known had you taken mechanics, it is always necessary to take into account all forces acting on a car! on earth, ground friction and wind resistance act on a car, creating a negative force, while the motor creates an exact and opposite force, in the case of constant velocity, so that A in the equation equals 0. In space, there are no other forces at work, so that the constant force creates constant acceleration. where, exactly, is your problem with this?

second, why is it so necessary to use your BS equation, F=MV(i), that frankly doesn't work? there is no possible way to prove that equation correct, though i invite you to try. and i don't mean saying "well, if you look at it this way, it works". i mean a mathmatical proof. i hope you've done them before? All newton's laws can be extrapolated from other equations and vice versa. your equation will fail. First, i want to show you the difference in results between your equation and newtons. quite a big one, actually. we'll use a simple word problem. i hope youv'e done them before?

Lets say we have a car with a mass of 550kg. the coefficient of friction between the car and the ground is .7. velocity is a constant 55m/s. this is taking place in a vaccum chamber on earth at sea-level. g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8m/s. F(m)= force of motor. F(f) = Force of friction. U = kinetic coefficient of friction. Find the force created by the engine.

(these numbers were off the top of my head. they are not meant to apply to possible real-life situations. But these numbers are all i need to prove your equation false.)

Newtonian=
EF=MA; F(m) + F(f) = MA
F(f)=U*-mg; F(f)=.7*550*9.8; F(f)= -3773
F(m) + -3773 = 550*0; F(m) - 3773 = 0
F(m) = 3773

So far, so good. the motor creates 3773N of force. now lets try it in yours

F=MV(i); F = 550*55; F= 30250N

Wow. quite a difference there. That engine must be a hell of a lot better then previously thought. wonder how much the guys over at porche would want for it? nevertheless, this proves one point: One of these equations is horrendously wrong. time to prove that its yours.

Its quite a simple solution, i'm suprised i didn't come up with it before: projectile motion. Yep, good, old projectile motion. Now, according to your little equation there, F=MV. but, in projectile motion, once, say, a bullet is fired from a gun, all horizontal force is gone, save wind resistance. Yet the bullet continues on its origional path, with pretty much the save velocity. How cna this be? according to your equation, when force stops, the object should halt. yet it doesn't? why is this? oh, yeah, because YOU'RE WRONG! And if you try to bring up air resistance, two things: A) the exact results of perfectly unchanging horizontal velocity (until the object hits the ground, of cource) occur in a vaccuum chamber, where it is easiest to calculate mechanics. however, you could also simply add F(w), or force due to wind resistance, into the equation, to get the definite answer in normal earth conditions. Force = Mass * Acceleration. That is it. it never equals Mass*velocity, unless the object is at rest with no forces acting upon it. you've lost. give it up.


Next, to disprove your gravity thing. I've come up with yet anoutehr easy solution nto this, by bringing back a friend: the vaccuum chamber. i ahve a simple question for you: why, if gravity is the result of the atmosphere, does it opperate at the same value calculated by newtonian mechanics in a vaccuum chamber, at 9.8M/s when at sea level? In a vaccuum chanmber, there is no atmosphere to speak of. Even if you count the thin amount left by even the ebst vaccuum,s by your reasoning, g should be incredibly reduced. no such luck. inf act, it could be percieved to work better since ther is no air resistance and an object can never reach its terminal velocity. again, you're finished, give it up. Though i invite you to give it a try at refuting this, i need a laugh

I don't care what gender you are, marry me.

ROFL. Wow, i'm relaly not sure why, but that hadme laughing the hardest i have in a long time. thanks

[edit]great post by InsanityDecends btw[/edit]

Have you ever intergated over a curve? you know, by using Calculus...

ever got excel to plot a graph, it can give you an equation that is a direct representation of the curve in mathematical form, using that formula and intergation (over dt) you can know anything you need to know.

its 8.10am, I'm going to be driving 250miles in 30mins down to cornwall and no one else wants to respond because they already believe all valid points have been pointed out, yet you have choosen ignore them...

and please do not put down the difference in the measured life-time of muons in a lab and in the atmosphere down to collisons...its down to relativity, go see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon it seems to explain it better than you r link....

now goodbye, I'm on holiday, I'm not going to worry about this thread any longer...

Heh, I haven't been following this thread as closely as everyone else, but I'd like to ask a question on the issue of the air pressure (maybe this was already addressed - i skipped between posts quite a bit)?

Isn't air pressure caused by gravity? Or specifically, the weight of all the air molecules above you, pressing downward? Although air pressure technically isn't gravity, isn't it the force of gravity (weight), per square area?

What are you talking about, heathen??? everyone knows gravity is just because god likes to push **** downwards...crazy guy.

Air pressure is caused by the weight of the coloumn of air pressing down on a surface (if we're talking in one direction - the vertical). Those molecules making up the air are held near the earth by gravity. One causes the other, but they are not the same thing.

It's like saying, alcohol in excess causes me to vomit, therefore vomit = alcohol.

You can try and say it in as many ways as you like, but it ain't true.

'nuff said.

This makes me want to cry.

I know, me too. I have tried.

Well, technically, your vomit would be alcohol

well, Emon, i msut congraduate you. right prediction all the way. i finally give him completely incontrovertable proof he's wrong and, oh, lookie here, he's gone! aw, what a shame.

Actually, I said "hypothetically speaking." However Air Pressure is most certainly NOT a phenomenon. Additonally, I DID address this in a previous post, I wasn't avoiding it...though InsanityDecends and James Bond have failed to rebuttle on a number of my statements/claims. Can I assume a concession on their part for those items?



There's just one problem with that. Objects in space traveling at a constant velocity with NO RESISTANCE DUE TO FRICTION still have "force" (at least, "force" as described by Newton because the object has "Knetic Energy" also as described by Newton). Keep in mind that the value of a Newton is constituted by Newtons Second law, which is solely based around the principle of the acceleration of an object being proportional to the net force acted apon it. It does NOT however, give us the "Force" in kinetic energy, that is to say, the "Force" that will act apon another object if it gets in our observed objects way.

Understandibly, there is a lot that has to be "modified" to takes these principles into account.



I swore to myself I wasn't going to use google, but while desperately trying to prove your claim (by trying to find a true vacuum chamber at sea level), I ran accross this interesting little tid bit:

http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/VTA/gravity.htm

I suppose my hypothetical analysis isn't totally ungrounded...

And please, do not continue to try and insult my inteligence with such comments as: "we'll use a simple word problem. i hope youv'e done them before?"

It's totally uncalled for and only serves to make you appear immature.



I'm glad we finally agree on something.



Strictly speaking, it doesn't. That example had nothing to do with "Force." It was oriented towards the discussion of Constant Acceleration vs Constant Velocity.



The problem is between what is being observed and what is actually happening. Again, an event can only be truly observed from the same inertial frame as the event. In this case, our 'event' is the engine. As you said, there are "forces" acting against it which DOES NOT cause A = 0, but rather causes the resultant of the two forces (where "force" is an abstract of Newtons Second law) working against each other to create an "observed" A of 0. Get the difference? The thing is, that's NOT what I'm concerned with. The point is, as far as the engine knows, it's having to continually do work as if it was constantly accelerating in a void. You must use that methodoligy of figuring that out before you can make the above determination [of forces working against each other to bring an observed equalibrium (of accereration) of 0].

The idea is to start at the smallest evident level of physics occuring in the problem and work your way out. Einstein tried to look at the larger picture and then work his way inward. It doesn't work out right when you do it that way. I know this first hand from taking events described in Relativity and working them both ways. I too got the same results Einstein did when working the problems that way. But I got a more rational solution when working the problems from the other direction.



Have you ever noticed when this occurs? Rarely do I ever respond to anything over the weekend. By the time Monday rolls around, the thread is ussually on the second or third page, so yeah, I generally don't bother trying to revive it. I haven't seen anyone post any "proof" yet. Quoting (summerized or not) examples or text out of various physics books/papers does not constitute "proof." What I have yet to see, is a logical connection (that I can't disprove) connecting their claims with the fundamental basics of physics. My claims against Relativity stands (though it's far more complex then the mere scope of this thread which only skims the surface).



Yes, I have. Did you know that in Physics, more often then not, you can make a "realization" about your problem and never have to carry out an intergration? Just like the majority of 3-dimensional problems can actually be worked in 2-dimensions. It just requires thinking outside the scope of the problems.

[quote=James Bond]ever got excel to plot a graph, it can give you an equation that is a direct representation of the curve in mathematical form, using that formula and intergation (over dt) you can know anything you need to know.[/quote]

I have used Maple on many occassions. I'm not sure what you're getting at here...



I think you have it backwards. I have addressed every point you guys have made. It has been you guys who have not addressed all of my points made in deffense of my previous points (after you guys attacked them).



You see Emon?

Did you know that they are actually two different classes of Muon's? That's right, they use a Lab Muon's value for a Cosmic Ray Muon. Such are the problems with much of the "Proofs" of Relativity. This despite the fact that a Lab Muon has a rest mass of 0.757028. Now through that into the lovely equation presented on page 2 of this thread and tell me what the mass would be at 0.97c? I would think it would be kind of hard to test something that massive at those speeds and get an accurate decay rate, don't you think?

Also (from another muon experiment done using the traditional freefall method):

"Another source of error is related with a basic assumption of the experiment, it is assumed that the charge on the muon makes no difference on the lifetime. This assumption is true if the particle is in space. But in the presense of matter, a few quantum effects accent the erroneous assumption. First of all, there is an inherent unbalance of µ+and µ−. Exactly,µ+µ−= 1.14 ± .04. The true effect that makes a difference is executed when the muons enter thematter. Once at non-relativistic speeds, the negative muons have a chance of being capturedby the atoms in the scintillator. This capture is on the time scale of 10−14sec which makesit a fast enough interaction to effect muon lifetime. By allowing the muon to come to alower energy state through the interaction: µ−+ N → N∗+ νµ, a new pathway effectivelyshortens the lifetime. This is shown by the lifetime without the absorption mode: τ =1Γdecay compared to the lifetime with the aborption mode: τ =1Γdecay+Γabsorb. The addition term inthe denominator shortens the muon lifetime τ.Finally, the last source of error comes from the formation of muonium. When the free,non-relativistic positive muon captures a free electron, the electron emits photons as itfalls into the muon’s potential well. This interaction also happens on the time scale of10−14seconds. Thus, this fast effect can mimic the scintillation of an emitted electron afterthe decay of the muon at rest that is capturing the electron. This emission could give apremature stop signal in coincidence with a cosmic muon hitting the bottom scintillator,effectively shortening the [calculated] lifetime."



Farewell.

Air Pressure is not a phenomenon?! What the **** are you talking about?

Here we go. I want to you to explain, without reference or quote from anywhere else, where you stand on air pressure and where you stand on gravity. Constantly saying "I have explained this" when clearly you haven't doesn't cut it. Write it down here.

Gravity is not air pressure. Discuss.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you actually denying that gravity exists within a vacuum chamber?

Yep. Oh the folly.

No. You have failed to prove that air pressure causes gravity. And yet you further make the claim that air pressure is not a phenomenon. Whaaaaaat are you SMOKING?

Of course there's no force in KE! Look at the equation! K=(1/2)mv^2. I see no F in there. You apply a force to object, you cause it to accelerate, which gives it KE since it's moving. The CHANGE in kinetic energy is work which is F*d. This is called the Work-(kinetic)Energy Theorem. That makes sense that if I'm increasing speed, I'm doing work on an object by applying a force over a distance.


The water is being pushed up by the atmospheric pressure which is greater than the force of gravity. Gravity is still acting on everything. There is only so much atmosphere that can compress. If you've taken proper physics courses, you'll know of Newton's Third Law which states "for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction." Force of gravity is going to pull down atmosphere, atmosphere is going to push back. It will come to a point where the forces balance themselves out and that's how the atmosphere sticks to our rock in space. Sorry, gravity causes atmospheres.


I love how you're making tangible quantities abstracts of laws. I think he's starting to get it!

I think we have on several occasions. You just do not read.

Anybody else wanna take a crack at him? I need breakfast.

I didn't even take physics in highschool.. and this is all amazingly obvious material to me.

Has anyone read all of http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/VTA/gravity.htm ? I'm actually kind of ashamed to be linking that bullplop again as it shouldn't even be given a second thought, but seeing as it's rather hilarious I wanted to to outline it really quickly.

The author of the afore-linked website asserts that:
- Density is weight (indirectly).
- Gravity must overcome all other forces or it doesn't exist as we believe it does.
- Magnetism is based purely on density.
- Objects falling in a vacuum do not exert a force on eachother (they're ignoring that gravity takes an extremely large mass to be visibly noticeable).
- The sun repels objects (doesn't explain how), but its magnetic field pulls them in.
- Gravity plus centripetal force is not what keeps the planets in orbit.
- The sun's wobble defines its magnetic field center.
- The size of a planet has to do with how hard the sun repels it.
- "The Russians" believe in this magical sun repulsion theory.
- Sunlight (the light itself) is what makes the planets in our solar system rotate.
- God (nicknamed "the creator") invented this system of magic repulsion vs. magnetism.

It's kind of fun to read, blue text on a black background. In the way that hammering a nail through the palm of your hand is fun.

QM

P.S. - I hope James Bond doesn't even bother his colleagues with what CaptBevvil has said so far. CaptBevvil, observational physics research only works because you're not taking into account all forces operating on the observed object. The afore-linked website makes heavy use of observation to "prove" their points without explaining all of the forces that are acting on the observed object.

Acceleration is a sum and negative acceleration is valid acceleration; the car traveling at a constant velocity is experiencing zero net acceleration (positive acceleration through internal combustion and the associated mechanics, negative acceleration from friction).

Air pressure is a phenomenon. Phenomena are observable facts or events. Aren't you arguing that air pressure is a fact?

I took the usage of a different deffinition of phenomenon (2a on dictionary.com).

On the subject of gravity, I HAVE explained my stance on it. I'm not going to retype it for your convience, read back through my posts.

[quote=Michael MacFarlane]Wait, wait, wait. Are you actually denying that gravity exists within a vacuum chamber?[/quote]

No, strickly speaking, that is not what I said. I said that I tried to find evidence of a true vacuum chamber. There's a strict difference.



I haven't attempted to prove that air pressure causes gravity. Again, I made a hypothetical statement. Regardless, it has no baring on the main topic of the thread or on the other claims I have made.



Ah, but we're back to the "constant velocity = constant acceleration" issue again. In my example there is no acceleration yet there is constant velocity (and "Force").

Of course, part of the descripancy is in the name. When people hear the word "evergy" they think of something it's actually not. If there was nothing for the object to ever colide with in my example, there would be no KE at all. However, or intent and purposes, according to classical physics, there would be "Potential Energy." In truth, there is nothing. There is no evidence that supports that these so called energies "exist." Though they ARE great conceptual tools (just as Mass, Length, and Time are).



Actually, more specifically, the air pressure and water inside the cup are not as strong as the air pressure just under it. Read the link I posted. It turns out that temperature and density also play a large part in it.

FYI, the author of that page has the following credintials:

Bachelor Information Technology
Electromechanical Engineering.
Mechanical Engineering.
Software Engineering.



Nice attempt at a dodge. Are you saying that a "force" is tangible? What does it consist of?



You can be assured that I have read every comment thoroughly. I stand by my statement. There have been a multitude of points that have not been readdressed after my deffense of them. Again, nice attempt at a dodge.

[quote=Quib Mask]Acceleration is a sum and negative acceleration is valid acceleration; the car traveling at a constant velocity is experiencing zero net acceleration (positive acceleration through internal combustion and the associated mechanics, negative acceleration from friction).[/quote]

We've concluded that already, what's your point? My point was that the force formula was not valid for instances where there there are 0 instances of acceleration at all and yet a "force" still exists (in the form of Potential Energy converted to KE striking another object).

[quote=Quib Mask]Air pressure is a phenomenon. Phenomena are observable facts or events. Aren't you arguing that air pressure is a fact?[/quote]

No, I am arguing that gravity (as caused by some unkown force yet to be explained by science) is a fact. I am offering Air Pressure (or simply pressure) as an alternative. Apparently, however, it is the combination of Pressure, Density, Temperature, and Magnetism...of course, it's all still hypothetical and more research needs to be done.

As to your claims against the author, keep in mind that his ideas are hypothetical as well. I'm sure if you e-mailed him any questions that you have would probably be answered.

I would first like a stab at a few of the points:

- Density is weight (indirectly).

Seeing as how classical physics defines weight as mg and he's suggesting that density is a component of what we consider gravity, I don't think that claim is completly ungrounded...

- Gravity must overcome all other forces or it doesn't exist as we believe it does.

I don't remember him every specifically making this claim. I think that, if you tried his experiment and had the instrumentation to take all the numbers (for air pressure (in, below, and around the cup), the specific gravity at the experimented altitude (will vary closer to 9.75, typically), the amount of water (2/3 of the cub used), etc.) you might find that it DOESN'T turn out the way classical physics would expect. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the interest to arrange for a test like that to be run right now. Maybe I'll try it in a few months and report my findings back here.

- Magnetism is based purely on density.

I don't believe he made this claim either. In fact, he uses them independantly of each other. Keep in mind also that he was only refering to the vertical component of magnitism.

- Objects falling in a vacuum do not exert a force on each other (they're ignoring that gravity takes an extremely large mass to be visibly noticeable).

We assume that masses are some how magically attracted to each other. However, there is no proof or explination of what causes this magical attraction. I would say that Newtons theory is bit outdated. On the specific point above, I'm not exactly sure what the author was trying to prove by the comment, strickly speaking. I guess the idea was that they in a vacuum, where you take out all other influences of "classical gravity" you should see the influences more so then with. The reason we can only detect "gravity" in large massed objects is because there's so many other large masses in our solar system canceling all the effects of smaller massed objects "gravity" out (according to classical physics).

- The sun repels objects (doesn't explain how), but its magnetic field pulls them in.

I'm not sure I agree with this myself. Your correct in that he offers no proof of the sun's "repeling" ability. Personally, I would think that the solar density is greater the closer you get to the sun such that it creates an equilibrium of counter property against vertical magnetic property towards the sun. Again, it's all hypothetical speculation. But I think it's a better explination then "objects with mass have gravity, now deal with it" ideology.

- Gravity plus centripetal force is not what keeps the planets in orbit.

Few physist even believe in "centripetal forces" now. The fact that it's moving in a circle around the sun does not tell us how it started moving in a circle to begin with or what keeps in moving at virtually a constant velocity despite the "drag" caused by "gravity" from the sun. Again, the classical explination for solar orbits just isn't thorough enough.

- The sun's wobble defines its magnetic field center.

He didn't say that the wobble defines it's magnetic field center. He mearly said that the sun's wobble occurs around it. I suggest your retract your point.

- The size of a planet has to do with how hard the sun repels it.

I think "size" was supposed to be "magnetic field strength" as he later states that "The distance the planet is spaced from the sun can be used to calculate the planets magnetic field strength and the repulsion force of the sun."

- "The Russians" believe in this magical sun repulsion theory.

Read above. It may have something to do with aether magnetic frequency principle he mentioned, but I am also unclear about it. Again, it's a better explination then what classical physics presents us with.

- Sunlight (the light itself) is what makes the planets in our solar system rotate.

Considering the angle of Earths axis, it's not completely far fetched that the light is what initally caused it to start rotating. I, doubt, however, it's what was the contributing factor to it's total rotation rate. My reasoning for this is simply because the Earth is actually decelerating (as if it's experiencing at least some "drag", though it's not very noticable). However, this could also be due to the widespread damage we've caused to this planet. It would be interesting to find out if the rotation of any other planet or satelite are slowing down...

- God (nicknamed "the creator") invented this system of magic repulsion vs. magnetism.

<shrug> Again, it's better then the current explination presented to us by classical physics. If you're a believer in creationalism (from a scientific prospective...as I am) then I don't see what was so far fetched about that statement. Take it as an opinon if you wish. I still agree with the statements content in that people do try to make things a lot more complicated then they really are...

No, no you haven't. This is EXACTLY why I said what I did in my last post.

Alright, I'll try and phrase this another way. I'll give you a simple question, to which the answer is either yes, no, or I don't know and I expect you to give me one, and not more than one, of those simple answers in return.

Does gravity act in a true vacuum chamber?

You have never ever ever ever felt a force upon you? You have never felt the car door push on you when you turn a tight corner?. You have never felt someone push/pull on you? You have never rubbed your hands to gether to bring about friction to warm your hands? You have never been slugged with incoming objects? You have never tripped over an object and fallen to the ground? You have never lifted an object off the ground and felt its weight?

I swear to god this kid needs to take middle school science. For chrissakes we learned what a force was in SIXTH GRADE.

The references to things like Maple have me worried that this...person passed through some form of education on this matter, and somehow managed to proceed without having a clue about anything.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I swear to god this kid needs to take middle school science. For chrissakes we learned what a force was in SIXTH GRADE.[/QUOTE]

Then why not take a swing at debunking each of his points?

Fear of Bull**** overload. I read about halfway into his posts then can't believe he can keep spewing the same ****ty rhetoric for the next half a page.

Not to mention he's only continuously bringing up the same points he did in his last post...which keep getting debunked (and before you say "How do you know if you haven't read the whole post" I usually go back and force myself to read it. Usually.)

Creationism science?


My life is now complete. I now, have really heard everything.

<sigh> Yes I have...



Apparently (as I have already mentioned several times) atmosphere isn't the only factor in what we consider "gravity" (gravity, in terms of course, of the effect of objects "falling" to a larger object, such as the earth). The other factors are apparently temperature, density, and the vertical component of magnetism. Obviously more research in this area needs to be done before anything can be said for certain.

[quote=Michael MacFarlane]Alright, I'll try and phrase this another way. I'll give you a simple question, to which the answer is either yes, no, or I don't know and I expect you to give me one, and not more than one, of those simple answers in return.

Does gravity act in a true vacuum chamber?[/quote]

For certain? "I don't know." I couldn't find an example of a "true" vacuum. Initially, I would have said "No." However, now with the added three factors, I'm simply not sure because obviously my hypothesis on gravity being directly the result of air pressure was incorrect.

Thanks for carrying on the Red Harring from the factual information I pretaining to Velocital Physics...



No. I have felt other (tangible) objects attempting to occupy the same space I was in.


Never. Again, the reason your head moves towards the door is due to elasticity and tension. The time it takes your head to move in the same direction of your feet is much longer then the time it takes the car door to move in the same direction as the tires. In short, your head is "lagging" behind the movement of the vehicle.



Again, elasticity and tension. Your nervous system send your brain a signal when you body begins to stretch out of what it considers "normal tollerance" (to warn you that your body, or at least parts of it, are about to rip apart). As far as "pushing" objects. Essentially, your able to "push" objects because you tell your hand to occupy (or pass through) the same space as the object was occupying. No magical "force" involved. It's the tensile strength of your hand, arm, etc. that allows you to do this (along with your muscles relaxing and contracting, etc.).



Still not a "force." Are you sure you know about thermodynamics?

[/quote]You have never been slugged with incoming objects?[/quote]

Again, object attempting to occupy the same space as I am...which is impossible.



Again, your body isn't regid, thus your head is still moving in the forward direction when your feet suddenly stops. I takes "time" for enough tension to generate all the way to the top of your head before you can even think of trying to reclaim your balance, by which time your head has already traveled a distance x past where your feet have stopped, thus, like most unbalanced things, you tend to fall over.



Sure, I've moved objects from one position to another. Stictly speaking, it's "weight" isn't a "force". The downward pressure of air accross the object (and it's mass, along with other factors as described above) causes and increase in elasticity and thus tension, sending the signal to your brain that the object must be "heavy." Weight is surprisingly very subjective. If it were not for the fact that we have a standard for it, and we based it on a scaler idea of what we felt (that is to say, by the "effect" it had on our body, ie elasticity and tension) 1 lb would feel like. My idea of 20 lbs would not be the same as a "Ah-Nold" the body builder. To him, it would be more like 5 lbs. Like wise, to a 4'x4' solid lead block, 200 lbs would be somewhere between 0-1lbs (subjectively speaking). The same goes for length and time. Thus, why we have standards for those "fundamental constants."

Regardless, you have still failed to prove that a "force" is tangible. In fact, I've been able to expalin all of your examples without the use of a "force." However, I'll reiterate, that for the purposes of vector math, the force equations are just fine (and for some other things). But as far as it being a tangible "phenomenon" you can forget it. There are much better explinations for why things are caused to accelerate. Largly, from when one object (or molecules, atoms, etc) is moving from one cooridinate space to another causing another object to move from it to another and so on. Most of the time, this is the result of a "reaction". Sometimes chemically but it can also be caused thermoly or by other means.

[quote=DJ Yoshi]I swear to god this kid needs to take middle school science. For chrissakes we learned what a force was in SIXTH GRADE.[/quote]

No, you learned how to use the "concept" (called a "force", in this case) to summerize the actual effects of tension, elasticity, tensile stength, etc. Using one term, a "Force" greatly simplified the problem for you.



Yeah, basically says that God started the Big Bang. Which, stictly speaking, doesn't violate the "...and God said, let there be light..." part in the Bible.

There were several threads in the old Religious forum where Firefox attempted to disprove the Bible using science. I countered him by instead proving events in the bilbe with science with the simple understanding that the Bible isn't literal (well, it is, but it isn't...but I'm not going to get into that...basically, it's not literal from a scientific or 3rd person point of view, but from several different subjective 1st person points of view).

I give up. I truly give up. I have not the time nor patience to explain simple physics over and over again.

Now if you'll excuse me, breakfast is calling.

Poor futureposted Martyn.

CaptBevvil, you are the most infuriating human being I have ever come across. That's not an insult, that is an observation.

You've said it all there, you were wrong, and have admitted it, and I am partially satisfied - your other factors are all rubbish by the way - gravity is a function of mass and the square of distances between objects.

Not wrong, just that my hypothesis on gravity was apparently only a smaller part of what actually constitutes what makes up gravity. At any rate I'm glad you are "satisified" that was incorrect about a hypothesis. All of which is inconsequencial to the main topic of this thread next to my Theory of Velocital Physics. It's Velocital Physics that clears the air and is what disproves relativity, fixes it, and ultimately what opens the doors to saying "Yes, faster then light travel is scientifically (and mathematically) possible." I have made some very good points against various experiments used to "confirm" relativity. Instead of addressing them, you and the others have decided to prey on a mere hypothetical statement. Great way to dodge the bullet, but it's still a Red Harring none the less and thus a logical reasoning fallacy. Once more, I hope you realize that using such fallacies only serve to weaken your integrity.

As to your last point, there has been no successful experimental evidence to support the idea that an object with mass also has gravity (innately). It's what I call a "theoretical neccessity." Much like "length-contraction" and "time-dilation." They were theoretical rules created to quickly explain away what scientist could not logically describe. It's not an uncommon occurance and it has happend a great many times in history. Finally, a scientist comes along that IS able to logically explain it and his theory then replaces it.

There has been plenty of scientific experiment into the nature of gravity you muppet: read a book! There is a reason that there are laws such as Keppler's Planetary motion laws and laws like F = (G*m1*m1)/r^2 and that is that they have been proven by experiment and by derivation from first principles to hold true!

GAAAAAAHH!!

What you just said is that the air pressure across the surface of the object causes changes in elasticity and tension, which sends signals to your brain that the object must be "heavy"? What the **** are you talking about? The reason things feel heavy is because of the strain on your muscles. How do you muscles get strained? When a FORCE acts on them. The reason something seems lighter to a stronger fellow is because his muscles are larger and more dense and more capable of counteracting the FORCE against them. What's the force in this situation? F = mg! Which is nothing but F = ma! The force the object is creating on you (or the palm of your hands, let's say you're carrying a box) is equal to the mass times the acceleration, which is 9.81 m/s^2 in this situation. F = MA. F EQUALS M GOD DAMN A. NOTHING ELSE. F NEVER EQUALS MV. NEVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. The force your muscles creates is equal to that Force. Why? BECAUSE THE BOX ISN'T FALLING WHEN YOU'RE HOLDING IT.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Why do you think a shopping cart with three watermelons in it is harder to push than an empty cart? Because the cart is pushing back on you. Not because of elasticity or tension, that's a load of **** and you have absolutely *NO* evidence to back it up. All your have is your bull**** hogwash theories that don't stand up to any of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED OVER THE PAST 400 YEARS. There have been many morons such as yourself who think they're outside the box and think they've discovered somthing new. You haven't. I dare you to take your theories to any half-decent university anywhere in the country. Try preaching your garbage infront of a room of physics professors. I would be suprised to see you leave without your legs broke.

And you would definitely feel the force on your legs then.

<3

Of course it was incorrect. Air pressure is the result of gravity, not the other way around. What do you think causes the air to stick to our rock? Gravity. Durr.

Also, I realize this specific subject is about gravity acting in a vaccuum chamber, but surely gravity acts in other forms of vaccuum, e.g. space? If not, what do you call this whole "orbit" thing that billions of planets do across the universe? How about the formation of said planets? How about the formation of stars? Of galaxies? What is all that? An optical illusion? Does Hubble have little green aliens inside it with a copy of Photoshop?