Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64

Thread: Acceleration of free fall / Acceleration due to gravity

  1. #1 Acceleration of free fall / Acceleration due to gravity 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    I’ve always thought the the two terms mean the same thing. However, in an edition of the previous series of “University Challenge” (a British university quiz show hosted by Jeremy Paxman), when one of the two contesting teams gave “acceleration due to gravity” as an answer to one question, the answer was disallowed by Jeremy Paxman because the answer on his card was “acceleration of free fall”. :?

    I was totally stunned.

    Fortunately the team that had that answer disallowed won by a comfortable margin in the end and so there wasn’t a fuss over that particular question. Well then, is there really a technical difference in sense between the terms “acceleration of free fall” and “acceleration due to gravity”? Have I been right all along to consider both expressions as synonymous with each other? :|


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    You're right, they mean exactly the same thing....g = 9.81ms<sup>-2</sup> near the Earths surface. I think Jeremey Paxman was either completely ignorant of it, or was just being too harsh.


    Chance favours the prepared mind.
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The very phrase "acceleration of free fall" seems clumsy and ambiguous to me. It implies that the strange entity free fall is the thing doing the accelration.
    Something like "acceleration in free fall" makes more sense.

    It is difficult, without knowing the original question, whether the disitinction between the two is valid or not. It seems to me that I have typically (perhaps only) heard free fall referred to falling within the atmosphere. In that case the acceleration is going to be strongly modified and eventually limited by air resistance. In this interpretation acceleration due to gravity and acceleration during free fall would be different.

    Just a thought.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.

    You didn't state the quiz question. It is possible that either answer may have been acceptable, as you say. Or maybe not. The program ought to have had a seated panel of experts who can rule on an answer if the moderator is uncertain. That's how it's done on many US quiz programs.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Numerically, "acceleration due to gravity" and "acceleration of free fall" are exactly the same (9.81ms<sup>-2</sup>), since neither takes into account any effects of wind resistance or drag.

    If you are in free fall, negleting the effects of drag, your acceleration (of free fall) is due to gravity, and is 9.81ms<sup>-2</sup>.

    For the case of an object going down a ramp, the acceleration is only acting perpendicularly to the Earth's surface, and so it only gets factored into the vertical component of the objects motion. It is still numerically equal to "acceleration of free fall", though I agree there is some ambiguity to the context of the question, since for that example, "acceleration of free fall" is not particularly clear.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by bit4bit
    Numerically, "acceleration due to gravity" and "acceleration of free fall" are exactly the same (9.81ms<sup>-2</sup>), since neither takes into account any effects of wind resistance or drag.

    If you are in free fall, negleting the effects of drag, your acceleration (of free fall) is due to gravity, and is 9.81ms<sup>-2</sup>.

    For the case of an object going down a ramp, the acceleration is only acting perpendicularly to the Earth's surface, and so it only gets factored into the vertical component of the objects motion. It is still numerically equal to "acceleration of free fall", though I agree there is some ambiguity to the context of the question, since for that example, "acceleration of free fall" is not particularly clear.
    You would think "Acceleration during free fall" would be a better way to clarify it.

    However I have noticed that "Great Scientists, highly decorated". Often put a more complex even bewildering term on things that we have used for years and years. And have communicated it already, without problem or incident for many years.

    In comes the new term and we have to joke around with it for months sometimes, until it is part of our vocabulary. And sometimes it causes a problem.

    Simple wins as far as I am concerned. Complex is for the error prone.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  8. #7  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Distance from location of beginning of freefall to terminal velocity, I'm sure theres an equation in there somewhere :-D.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Hmm, I’ve never thought about it this way before. But it makes sense.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Hmm, I’ve never thought about it this way before. But it makes sense.
    Look at Bit4Bit's post, the acceleration is still due to gravity.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Hmm, I’ve never thought about it this way before. But it makes sense.
    Look at Bit4Bit's post, the acceleration is still due to gravity.
    Exactly. That’s what SteveF said.
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Technically, Steve is right, but it would really be nitpicky to disallow the answer on that basis. As I remember from physics classes, g is called "the acceleration due to gravity" even if the object is sitting on the ground. Then its weight is "mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity."
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Distance from location of beginning of freefall to terminal velocity, I'm sure theres an equation in there somewhere :-D.

    Terminal velocity is only a valid thing passing through a substance that can slow it down. In space it could probably reach almost any speed.

    The terms we are discussing are way to vague to describe something like that.


    And even then the objects terminal velocity is determined by its temperature, structure, and or its ability to emit radio, laser or light beams ahead of it. To cut a path, much like lightning does through air.

    Some objects can actually use the air passing through the object, to detonate air behind it. They are often dangerous but realistic.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  14. #13  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yeah but something or someone in freefall usually is pulled into the object that is causing the gravity. I was merely applying naturally this question to Earth. Logically that would to most people be easier to comprehend.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Maybe there was an orbital element to the question? While the numerical value is still the same, some ambiguity might have arisen between linear and vector acceleration? An object in orbit for instance has almost no linear acceleration, but it does vectorily. Such an object is in free fall, but undergoes no linear acceleration. An object falling linearly toward the gravitational centre of the earth does undergo linear acceleration. Both are due to gravity obviously, so I guess it comes down to the quizzer’s lack of understanding. IMHO
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Yeah but something or someone in freefall usually is pulled into the object that is causing the gravity. I was merely applying naturally this question to Earth. Logically that would to most people be easier to comprehend.
    I have yet to have anyone ever, explain attraction or pulling. And don't get me wrong, I say the vacuum sucks, even though it is the pressure outside the vacuum hose in the room, pushing air into the vacuum hose.

    But I am saying that it appears that something from above the planet is pinning us to the planet, rather then the planet sucking us to it. That is also how I was taught.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But I am saying that it appears that something from above the planet is pinning us to the planet, rather then the planet sucking us to it. That is also how I was taught.
    If ever there was evidence that you slept through physics class, this is it.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But I am saying that it appears that something from above the planet is pinning us to the planet, rather then the planet sucking us to it. That is also how I was taught.
    If ever there was evidence that you slept through physics class, this is it.
    That is how we were taught things worked. And they do.

    You have to see a supposed great scientist try to explain how things attract one another. It is really funny. Often as they are trying to explain it, they realize that maybe they are just using the wrong terms.

    Everything repels everything else. To a greater or lesser degree.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Care to tell us who this teacher of yours is?
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I say the vacuum sucks
    So does your science education, IMHO.
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I say the vacuum sucks
    So does your science education, IMHO.
    You mean the open honest promise from law makers in the sixties, to use counterintelligence on me, and other Americans? Yea, they failed miserably.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I say the vacuum sucks
    So does your science education, IMHO.
    Jane if you had a spring from say a ball point pen. And you pressed it together, squish'ed it together. And then you slowly started to open your fingers. Would you say with any exacting science, or knowledge that your fingers were sucking the spring open?

    I hope not.

    Because in that scenario you would know that you just pushed the spring together and now you are just taking some of the pressure off. And you would be able to feel the spring still pushing your fingers apart.

    That is all that is happening in the Universe. And with gases in a chamber. You can only let them out, until there is no more spring tension left. Compared to the forces outside the chamber. But the spring is still in the chamber. Even if it cannot push anymore atoms out.

    The Universe is under pressure. You take some pressure away or divert it and it seems like things attract. However they are just being pushed into one another.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    That makes zero sense.
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    That makes zero sense.

    Ok I put two magnets in a ballon, and seal it. I turn the magnets so they are opposed to one another. So that they create a sort of space between them a vacuum is created in the balloon as they move away from each other.

    There you have a scenario where there is pressure on the outside of the balloon. And you have pressure from the two magnets repelling one another.

    All there is, is pressure, I believe we can agree on that.

    Now, I destroy the magnetic power of the magnets. And they are pushed together by the air pressure in the room.

    That is all I am saying we live in pretty much.

    Even if you create a lack of repulsion, only repulsion/pressure, can move anything.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I say the vacuum sucks
    So does your science education, IMHO.
    You mean the open honest promise from law makers in the sixties, to use counterintelligence on me, and other Americans? Yea, they failed miserably.
    No. I mean the teachers who taught you their version of science and maths at school – who have been responsible for giving you all the strange ideas about science and mathematics that you have. They suck. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Jane if you had a spring from say a ball point pen. And you pressed it together, squish'ed it together. And then you slowly started to open your fingers. Would you say with any exacting science, or knowledge that your fingers were sucking the spring open?

    I hope not.

    Because in that scenario you would know that you just pushed the spring together and now you are just taking some of the pressure off. And you would be able to feel the spring still pushing your fingers apart.
    Don’t worry, I know how a spring works. At least I know Hooke’s law (which you probably don’t).

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That is all that is happening in the Universe. And with gases in a chamber. You can only let them out, until there is no more spring tension left. Compared to the forces outside the chamber. But the spring is still in the chamber. Even if it cannot push anymore atoms out.

    The Universe is under pressure. You take some pressure away or divert it and it seems like things attract. However they are just being pushed into one another.
    WTF???
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Now, I destroy the magnetic power of the magnets. And they are pushed together by the air pressure in the room.
    This is a bad analogy because the force which draws the two demagnetized magnets together is that which you are trying to describe via the analogy in the first place--gravity.
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That is all that is happening in the Universe. And with gases in a chamber. You can only let them out, until there is no more spring tension left. Compared to the forces outside the chamber. But the spring is still in the chamber. Even if it cannot push anymore atoms out.

    The Universe is under pressure. You take some pressure away or divert it and it seems like things attract. However they are just being pushed into one another.
    WTF???
    I was saying that you never suck a chamber of atoms. You allow the atoms that are still in the chamber to expand to their maximum state. Given the area and the pressure in that area, that they are being allowed to expand into.

    There is no such thing as a total vacuum. That is why Brookhaven labs took America for a ride. I know murderous con artists that have committed less atrocities.
    Brookhaven labs claimed that they would take all the atoms, and even electrons, from the acceleration chamber.

    It was to any real scientist a scam, a joke. A way to get some money using the governments cover-up to shut the government up and make them pay up.

    But it was not science. Anyone that backs Brookhaven labs does not know basic forth grade science.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    William,
    this is a science forum. We discuss science on it. While we welcome interesting ideas that deviate from consensus science, we do not welcome ill conceived, poorly presented, unsubstantiated, incoherent waffle. As far as I can see your ideas expressed in this post fall in to the latter category. They also show the incipient paranoia of the conspiracy theorist. That is also unwelcome here.
    Please take note.
    thank you.
    Ophiolite
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    William,
    this is a science forum. We discuss science on it. While we welcome interesting ideas that deviate from consensus science, we do not welcome ill conceived, poorly presented, unsubstantiated, incoherent waffle. As far as I can see your ideas expressed in this post fall in to the latter category. They also show the incipient paranoia of the conspiracy theorist. That is also unwelcome here.
    Please take note.
    thank you.
    Ophiolite
    I see a paranoia myself in your post. The latest thing to combat reality is to scream conspiracy nut.
    If you look and actually read my posts. The government at one time or another came out, if only once for five minutes, on a news broadcast and told of the horrid plans they had.

    I don't know if you recall Donald Rumsfeld, speaking out on CNN news and announcing that suspected terrorists, would be subjected to torture, by use of artificial breathing equipment.

    At the time with all the fear of another strike, no one said anything. Then a few months later they put a women Marine in prison for belittling war criminals.

    So I am the first to say there is no conspiracy. There is just planed counterintelligence.


    I would like to know how you would remove all the atoms from a chamber?

    It cannot be done. The atoms in the walls of the chamber will start to evaporate into the chamber. It was such a well established thing to real scientists of the time. That we were laughing at how they could ask for a grant for the impossible at Brookhaven Labs. How they got it is history.

    If you have a technical reason why you think you can create a perfect vacuum let me know what it is. Otherwise I don't think in a science forum that you should attack me personally. Attack me with facts. I love that.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    William,

    nice attempt to turn the argument around, but no banana.

    I am not interested - within a thread on gravitational acceleration - about the inadequacies, inconsistencies, immoralities and illegalities of the current (or former) US administration. If you wish to debate those in some other part of this forum go ahead. They are wholly irrelevant here.

    You have made an uncited, undocumented, unsubstantiated claim about what Brookhaven Labs allegedly did. Even if your allegation is true it has nothing to do with your nonsense about gravity and suction. You have erected a strawman in which I have zero interest and which is not relevant to the thread.

    Please leave your crazy ideas off this thread. If you feel you must discuss them, we have a pseudoscience section that will welcome them.

    Thank you.

    Ophiolite
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Actually, it is in free fall. In fact, everything is in free fall. The earths surface is accelerating up towards the sliding object, just as it is accelerating up towards us and everything else.

    Hence, the answer, "acceleration of free fall" is incorrect.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    William,

    nice attempt to turn the argument around, but no banana.

    I am not interested - within a thread on gravitational acceleration - about the inadequacies, inconsistencies, immoralities and illegalities of the current (or former) US administration. If you wish to debate those in some other part of this forum go ahead. They are wholly irrelevant here.

    You have made an uncited, undocumented, unsubstantiated claim about what Brookhaven Labs allegedly did. Even if your allegation is true it has nothing to do with your nonsense about gravity and suction. You have erected a strawman in which I have zero interest and which is not relevant to the thread.

    Please leave your crazy ideas off this thread. If you feel you must discuss them, we have a pseudoscience section that will welcome them.

    Thank you.

    Ophiolite
    You said, conspiracy. Now you are saying crazy ideas.

    What in particular is crazy? I cannot get anyone to say exactly what in particular is crazy about my ideas.
    I think what you are saying is that if I am correct, it would be easier to call me crazy then to fix your own life. That may be true. However it is not good for anyone.

    I was just giving analogies, comparing something that many hear and know is corrupt, and yet don't do anything about. To how science, math and English may have suffered a similar fate. Being steered by law makers rather then masters in their field.

    If I am correct that you cannot pull a perfect vacuum. And a forth grade science class should know whether or not that is true. Brookhaven labs would certainly have to remove all the atoms in the chamber, before they could isolate, much less see, a particle they feel is smaller then an electron.

    Certainly if Brookhaven Labs did in fact take money immorally. And proclaim themselves to be particle experts. And introduce more placebo particles, and claim that they are real. Certainly science needs to be doubted. When science today cannot do what we did in the sixties.

    I feel I am gently alerting you to a possibility that your science is corrupt and worthless.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Actually, it is in free fall. In fact, everything is in free fall. The earths surface is accelerating up towards the sliding object, just as it is accelerating up towards us and everything else.

    Hence, the answer, "acceleration of free fall" is incorrect.
    I don't buy the earth is accelerating towards the car. I see the car pressed down to the earth, by "gravity velocity" ambient radiation.

    Free fall tends to assume that some substance is being fallen through, perhaps limiting the infinite speed or acceleration that may be obtainable, if no substance at all was present.
    If there were no assumed substance there would just be gravity, and the speed that a specific gravity would accelerate an object, through nothing at all.

    The ramp could be seen as a substance in my opinion. However it seems a bit out of the realm of the normal substance or its structure, usually very small uniform particles, like water, air, space or deep space.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You said, conspiracy. Now you are saying crazy ideas.
    What in particular is crazy? I cannot get anyone to say exactly what in particular is crazy about my ideas.
    Here is a sampling:

    The Universe is under pressure. You take some pressure away or divert it and it seems like things attract. However they are just being pushed into one another.

    Even if you create a lack of repulsion, only repulsion/pressure, can move anything.

    But I am saying that it appears that something from above the planet is pinning us to the planet, rather then the planet sucking us to it. That is also how I was taught.

    You seem to be rejecting the rather well established concept of gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think what you are saying is that if I am correct, it would be easier to call me crazy then to fix your own life. That may be true. However it is not good for anyone.
    No William. I am saying you are talking bollocks. You are not only talking bollocks, you are doing so in an incoherent, rambling fashion. Gravity is real. We are not pinned to the planet by some external force. Your ideas are so bizarre that crazy is a wholly inadequate description of them.
    My own life may well need fixing, but such a state of affairs is wholly unrelated to your delusions. Please stop polluting these threads with your inane comments.
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I hate to admit it, but, gravity pushing-not-pulling is plausible IMO. I hate to admit it because of the vehement reaction and real discomfort it causes. So I may like those theories and even develop my own, but I'm not advertising them.

    William, you may be right, however our mainstream belief works perfectly well for most things. You can use it and pretend to share it, what's the difference? Let them find the other when they're wading in puzzles and desperate. Not there yet.
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I hate to admit it, but, gravity pushing-not-pulling is plausible IMO.
    There are two probable reasons for this.
    1) You are an experienced scientist with a detailed understanding of the experimental and theoretical observations that support the current theories of gravity and yet have noted an alternative perspective that addressess all of the issues precisely addressed by current theory and potentially does so in a more elegant manner.
    2) You lack the detailed understanding and experience described above and have a simplistic alternative that adequately answers a small subset of all the issues associated with the 'problem'.

    Setting aside your own knowledge of who you are, statistically, which of these two alternatives strikes you as the more likely?
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    There ya go. Reaction is to doubt the person, not the theory. Why I hate to admit even entertaining it.
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    There ya go. Reaction is to doubt the person, not the theory. Why I hate to admit even entertaining it.
    Would you like to try that again? This time read what I have said, not what you think I have said. You may find it an enlightening experience.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Normally, an alternative to a currently accepted theory is sought only when there is a crisis with the current theory – when there are discoveries of phenomena which the current theory cannot adequately explain. For instance, the theory of mechanics developed by Newton was so powerful that scientists were quite happy to accept it as a universal truth – until they started trying to apply it to phenomena involving speeds close to that of light. Experiments such as those by Michelson and Morley in the late 19th century were providing irrefutable evidence that the speed of light was the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion – something which Newtonian mechanics could not satisfactorily account for. We have the genius of one man to thank for coming up with the much sought-after alternative theory to Newtonian mechanics – a theory that not only could account for the new experimental results with the speed light but was also consistent with the old theory at mundane speeds.

    On the other hand, there is no crisis with the currently accepted theories of gravitation, such as Newton’s theory of gravitation, or the quantum-mechanical theory of gravitons – hence there is no pressure to develop any new theory of gravity yet. :P This is not to say that you can’t exercise your imagination and creavity by developing one anyway. You just have to make sure your theory does not seriously conflict with the current ones (in the same way that Einstein’s special theory of relativity does not seriously conflict with Newton’s mechanics at speeds very much less than that of light). And of course (until new discoveries show otherwise) you have no right to claim that your theory is right and that the current theories, which have long stood the test of time, are wrong – a crime which Mr McCormick here is reprehensibly guilty of.
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You seem to be rejecting the rather well established concept of gravity.
    Well established is the lie. They allowed freshly appointed failed scientists to change up what they could not understand. The reality is simple. The currently accepted science is just babble.

    I will just tell you the reason, why the freshly appointed scientists went the wrong way. They were more afraid that sick individuals were already in control, and that the sick individuals were more then willing to destroy science. For mere domination and control, for kicks basically.

    I evidently am not good at putting forth a persuasive argument. However that does not change what you can demonstrate, and what you cannot demonstrate.

    Light is the effect of faster moving ambient radiation. You are looking at and describing the waves as the cause of light. That is just no true, or badly termed. And that is why everything seems to be traveling at the same speed.

    Look at a sail boat and a speed boat traveling through the water, and the wake that each creates.

    Matter is simple, and has been simple since before World War Two. In fact to create World War Two, was to say that matter was too simple, if you wanted fools to continue to lead the country.

    With the truth of matter uncovered. Utter retards could no longer have a place at the head of our nations. You can see how law makers would have no place if matter was indeed a very simple thing, as was shown and proven, before World War Two.

    It would be very hard to give tax money to obviously flawed projects. It would be nearly impossible to defend Washington DC from Americans that wanted Satisfaction from their servants.

    It would be hard to pull a fast one on any good citizen, adhering to our founding fathers words of wisdom.
    "Nothing deserves your utter most patronage more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest bases of public happiness".

    Right away when everyone is smart, we would wipe away with ease and simple explanation why something is or is not correct. I would not hesitate to look at the old or new theories and discuss them to an end.

    I have for years been saying pretty much what I am saying now. I have gotten better at it. I have been able to mesh the two worlds of science terminology, so that I can communicate across the two realms.
    But we continue to slide further and further into the dark ages. Science is being made into something you just dream retarded, make believe dreams about. We have the technology and have had the technology since before World War Two.

    So I may not seem like mister happy. However you obviously do not know what we are capable of. Or you would not just be happy to take what they give you and do nothing with it.

    As far as current theories standing the test of time. I would say as long as fools rule the world the current nonsense will continue to conflict itself, making it anything but a science.
    There is not one conflict with my science. Through the years there have been misunderstandings. Usually brought about by foreign suppliers and language barriers.

    When other countries made products, they were often the authority on how it was made. It gets here and one guy here says the substance was this, the guy from the country that made it says it was that. They call the manufacturer, and from that day on it was called that. Even if the other country was dead wrong. Part of the reason George Washington warned that we should not rely on any other country for our staple goods. No matter the price, or convenience.

    I have the most powerful historic scientific fact available to defend my point of view. The world was round, and then flat.

    The world was flat, and if you did not adhere to that well established, well proven, well accepted scientific fact, printed on the finest parchment available. You could be burned as a witch, a charlatan, a con artist. Imagine someone collecting money to sail around a flat world? What kind of a foolish liar would sail around a flat world when we know it is flat and is well established to be flat.

    Real science is anything but flat. It is the most three dimensional unlimited thing I have ever seen. It is infinity.

    We are wadding in puzzles and confusion well over our heads. You may just be lucky or very unfortunate not to see the whole picture. Probably unfortunate.

    I cannot imagine you don't see overcrowding as a problem. A problem that would be a simple thing to fix with real science.
    We had real science and a real plan. It seemed like more fun to the retarded leaders to just see where the lotto of warfare takes us.

    The law makers couldn't say you need at least, as a minimum three walls of steel to block magnetic fields.
    But they could say, "send some of the tanks with the big guns to blow them up".
    And look cool doing it. Almost seemed like a frantic brave decision to risk the lives of American citizens on the battle field. Or they just saw some other president do the same things, and be remembered as a hero. That would be the simple mind in all out action.

    All the elements up to 86 I believe were isolated using the understanding I have been posting. So if there is a well established understanding of science, I own it. The hydrogen spectrometer works on velocity.

    The elements past 86 were considered to be actually un-isolate-able in the fields and ambient temperature of earth. They thought that maybe on a planet further out in space that you could isolate them. They suggested because we could not isolate them, that we should not use them readily.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I hate to admit it, but, gravity pushing-not-pulling is plausible IMO.
    There are two probable reasons for this.
    1) You are an experienced scientist with a detailed understanding of the experimental and theoretical observations that support the current theories of gravity and yet have noted an alternative perspective that addressess all of the issues precisely addressed by current theory and potentially does so in a more elegant manner.
    2) You lack the detailed understanding and experience described above and have a simplistic alternative that adequately answers a small subset of all the issues associated with the 'problem'.

    Setting aside your own knowledge of who you are, statistically, which of these two alternatives strikes you as the more likely?
    I do not see either choice as a real choice.
    There are no real scientists right now.
    I have no questions I need answered about reality.

    I have interests, I would love to see some of the things I learned or have experimented with, done on a larger scale with many more checks. But I need no information to achieve anything I wish to do. Even deep space travel in days. So I am just waiting basically, for other life to emerge.

    That is why I have devoted my life to bucking the dark ages. I know where all the nonsense will take us. There is nothing even slightly fascinating in all the nonstandard, incorrect stuff we have.

    It is funny sometimes watching witch doctors mix stuff, I know will explode ahead of time. But I am laughing at my own inability to stop them. Not at their ignorance.

    But look who are we kidding? You would not do anything if I was totally correct. So just let me warn those that might.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Dude, most of us are game enough to consider anything but not these buckshot posts all at once. Stay on topic. Be methodical. Patience!
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Dude, most of us are game enough to consider anything but not these buckshot posts all at once. Stay on topic. Be methodical. Patience!
    Methodical, patience, sounds more like "Bill, just do what the man lets you do, and don't make waves. Just wait some more until another new generation has 200 phony particles that might be real in the their minds". I am laughing but we may have 200 particles by now.

    We had one phony neutron particle because, and I swear to this, on my life. Because they were going to destroy science if science was nearly perfect. They wanted some bizarre thing that they knew was phony. So they could walk up to any new scientist and have the edge. Nothing more. Nothing else. Nothing complicated. They wanted a particle.

    The stupid mind needs the angle, the edge, the scheme. Scientists happily avoid and remove those things from science. Scientists are not afraid of losing science or their jobs. They work so hard, they don't care if they get canned. God will make it right.

    If you look at history, during World War Two they were hiding the real Atomic bomb. And they came out and said they would.

    The only problem was just about every factory accident, every oil filled device works on similar principles. You could never hide the bomb and not destroy America. But that was the plan.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Explosives...imahalfton.PDF

    Read that well. Read the part about "take comfort". Key words in controlling fools. It might be ok on a tube of hemorrhoid cream, but not when it comes to Counterintelligence or lack of knowledge. We had that bomb technology since the time of Benjamin Franklin.

    The war was to hide it from citizens. Who were preparing to use it at home. In many home countries.

    I am not at all mad or upset with you. In fact I am just pressing it as far as it will go. Because if we die this stupid, or we fall into the dark ages again, it won't matter who's feelings were hurt or even who got run over by a train.

    I was brought up with the understanding that there are 25,000 year old hieroglyphics on the moon. From the past civilization here on earth. Including composite telephone like poles, that today Florida uses to hang power lines from.

    There were sights here in New York that during excavations turned up chromium tools, deep beneath the ground. They felt that they were from another civilization as well.

    The Corning ware manufacturing center, where they had a giant lens they were making for the military, in the seventies, destroyed a block long kiln, when it started to block ambient radiation, warped, and the parabolic shape beamed away the kiln. All explainable, yet they will repeat it again.

    I am just saying get out of the twinkie wrapper. And warn others they are not twinkies.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I was brought up with the understanding that there are 25,000 year old hieroglyphics on the moon. From the past civilization here on earth. Including composite telephone like poles, that today Florida uses to hang power lines from.
    It's crap like this that makes people describe what you say as crazy and conspiratorial. This has nothing to do with the original topic, nothing to do with the myriad tangents you have brought up, and so irrespective of the veracity of the statement, nobody knows why you're saying it. Even if it made the slightest bit of sense, it's completely baseless--do you have any sources that corroborate this? You just can't drop a bomb like this without explaining where it's coming from and what it has to do with anything, and you can't act indignant when people get all "WTF WILLIAM?!?!". The burden of proof is on you. The burden of making sense is on you. You've got to shoulder it. And you can't just refer to your expertise or your education because, frankly, both are in doubt.
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Gravity is real. We are not pinned to the planet by some external force. Your ideas are so bizarre that crazy is a wholly inadequate description of them.
    My own life may well need fixing, but such a state of affairs is wholly unrelated to your delusions. Please stop polluting these threads with your inane comments.

    "Gravity is real", was never disputed by me, so your lack of hard evidence has lead to you trying to trick readers into thinking that I do not believe in gravity. Very bad. You will not get to Heaven like that, in my opinion.

    By actually looking at gravity, you could see how it appears that we are sucked to the planet. But very honestly you can look at it and see how we are pushed to the planet.

    And I am not the one who just wants to be right. I have looked for anyone to explain or demonstrate how we are sucked to a planet, rather then pressed to the planet. I have yet to ever hear one explanation. Not even one.

    I have heard some start, and then to their dismay, they back down. Because they realize they just took it for granted. And then backed it with their word, their reputation, but never bothered to check something so obvious.

    I kind of know what took place from having it relayed to me, from a Universal Scientist, that knew they lost the popularity contest.

    They stated that what took place was a counter argument to the reality. That often proved even to the Universal Scientist surprising that some things did in fact almost work out in the other direction.

    However in all honesty, the Universal scientist won hands down. It was his extreme thoroughness that allowed the lazy scientists a chance to win.

    After the battle or contest, that the newer scientists were having, the older scientists kind of realized that the newer scientists were never going to be scientists. Because they were trying to beat something, rather then search for knowledge.

    A universal scientist can always be wrong. But his original fame was that he had so many hard tested proofs, that you would be pretty much wasting your time arguing with him.

    But there were very poor Universal Scientists as well. They helped to drag down Universal Science.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    It's crap like this that makes people describe what you say as crazy and conspiratorial. This has nothing to do with the original topic, nothing to do with the myriad tangents you have brought up, and so irrespective of the veracity of the statement, nobody knows why you're saying it. Even if it made the slightest bit of sense, it's completely baseless--do you have any sources that corroborate this? You just can't drop a bomb like this without explaining where it's coming from and what it has to do with anything, and you can't act indignant when people get all "WTF WILLIAM?!?!". The burden of proof is on you. The burden of making sense is on you. You've got to shoulder it. And you can't just refer to your expertise or your education because, frankly, both are in doubt.
    Of course I had a lot of sources at one time to collaborate this. Even the pictures from the Clemintine satellite at one time had views of the entire moons surface. On the blow ups at one time there were all the things I mentioned, to see.

    Now I cannot locate them, and it appears that all the surface of the moon is no longer available at the Clemintine site. Some of it appears to be missing.

    In my area, it was no big deal just a few years ago.

    Once on a news cast during the space Apollo space flights. A reporter started reading from his screen under the desk top. He started, "And This Just In, Hieroglyphics On The Moon!" Then he said, nothing. The fellow anchor man asked "is there any more on that"? He said "My screen just went blank". Then the other anchorman said, "maybe we will hear more on that later".

    I am still waiting.

    Once a priest agreed to be on television, and the reporter put the questions like, if there was proof that there was a civilization here before. What would the churches stand be. The priest said that we would basically deny its existence. It would not go along with the bible or help the church.

    If you go to some remote jungles you may still be able to make fire with a modern device or mesmerize the tribesmen with a laser beam. But that does not mean that we do not posses much better stuff.

    I am just saying that most today are just dazzled by very low tech stuff. Complicated low tech do nothing stuff, seems to dazzle the average guy, like a fancy English necklace dazzled the old African tribesman.

    During one of the Apollo missions, the guys were putting a gold laser beam on the moon to fire at the earth for a test. They were being given instructions that the laser had to sit on a very stable very level spot. And it may take a very long time to find a level spot.

    The astronauts were laughing and said, its ready. And they asked from the ground. How did you find a spot so level. They said that there was a big square flat object that they found to put it on. I know of the object from pictures. It was a man made slab.
    Then the ground asked about the object. And they said yea it looks man made. And we never heard another thing about it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    It's crap like this that makes people describe what you say as crazy and conspiratorial.
    You keep saying conspiracy. As soon as they tell the American public, it is no longer a conspiracy. You and I become part of the legal plan. It is only a conspiracy if they don't come out with an announcement.

    Right now our law makers take a no complaint as go ahead.

    I claim no conspiracy at all. I have seen the government come right out and claim the most outlandish things. We sit back and do nothing.

    In two weeks time, the government could cut our fuel supplies, and we would become the most loyal slaves on earth. Until our numbers thinned out from starvation, and we could hold land and make a stand.

    Governor Ventura claimed that during the Cuban missile crises, that plans were on the table for review to blow up cities in America, to get something going with Cuba.

    I also from family ties have heard similar if not even more destructive plans that are considered. Planed for, and are ready to go into operation.

    The men fighting on the World War One battle fields, walked off from the war. After making friends with the "enemy" and hearing each others lies, told to each side. Those men, some were shot by their own sides for no longer fighting. They had to remove all of them and replace them, with new men that did not know the truth.

    But you think the law makers are more honest now?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Let me add to the list of things which are not acceptable references: your memory.

    I wasn't asking you to verify your moon thing. I was using it as an example of why people think you're crazy. Everything you just said is ludicrous, and so the natural assumption is that you're crazy. Unless you can find us some pictures of Buzz Aldrin giving Anubis a high five on the moon, don't even bother trying to convince us that the Egyptians have been there.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Let me add to the list of things which are not acceptable references: your memory.

    I wasn't asking you to verify your moon thing. I was using it as an example of why people think you're crazy. Everything you just said is ludicrous, and so the natural assumption is that you're crazy. Unless you can find us some pictures of Buzz Aldrin giving Anubis a high five on the moon, don't even bother trying to convince us that the Egyptians have been there.
    You are saying that my statements are illogical in getting to the point I am making about failed science?

    If so, I would like you to tell me how a band of losers that are in charge of our science, math, and English language, could possibly want us to be knowledgeable.

    What would the basis of this sudden ground breaking non-flat world thinking be based upon? It goes against thousands of years of history.

    I have seen no joyous dancing in the streets to proclaim its end.

    They have cancelled all the good experiments and programs, many times. I see no change.

    Do you remember the movie roots. All the slaves are telling Kunta Kinta to be quite. Be a good nigger for masa. Change your name to Tobie. That is all that has happened to science really.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    And now you border on the offensive.

    And what do hieroglyphics on the moon have to do with failed science? Nothing! William, you wouldn't know logic if it invited itself over for dinner.
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    the point I am making about failed science
    ...belongs where? Not in JaneBennet's thread on "free fall". :x Do you understand how rude you're being?

    Start your own thread titled "Failed Science". Go for it! There you may ramble off fifty loosely connected shocker statements all in one post if you like.
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    the point I am making about failed science
    ...belongs where? Not in JaneBennet's thread on "free fall". :x Do you understand how rude you're being?

    Start your own thread titled "Failed Science". Go for it! There you may ramble off fifty loosely connected shocker statements all in one post if you like.

    Free fall, involves gravity. Gravity at one time was considered to push you down. Not pull you down. And not just because it was taught that way in my town. But rather that no one could explain attraction. No one ever came close.

    Yet repulsion worked for all our equipment. That is how our equipment was designed. We did not have attraction induction equipment. We had repulsion induction equipment.

    Our elements were defined with repulsion as the motivation in the experiments.

    A bunch of certain velocity electrons creates the effect of gravity. They are going fast enough to penetrate your entire body, and not just press on the surface of your body. Yet they are slowed enough to put pressure upon you.
    Much like x-rays penetrate your entire body, while light stops pretty much at the surface. Ultraviolet goes a bit deeper then light. But all of those emissions were just electrons, still in my day.

    I will be the first to admit that science looked like a battle field. Until the government took over and made high paying jobs for the usually underpaid Universal Scientist. But the government was not doing it for the science.

    Let me give yet one more analogy.

    Years ago the Catholic church was growing like mad in America. The church was gaining serious power. I mean a priest could slip a story over a hot meal about a bad politician treating him or the church poorly, and one of the extremely happy recipients of the meal, would bump off an evil law maker, before the next hot meal.
    The government right up on the latest danger to themselves, made public announcements at a time when the government had no money. And were treating the poor like dirt. That the government would end the dreaded soup kitchens, with Welfare.

    A rather poor nation that felt good about themselves contributing to the soup kitchens through the church and through their businesses, suddenly felt like they did not need to contribute anymore.
    The government had promised free housing, free food. And not just soup kitchen left overs but rich people food. Of course this never paned out. But it destroyed so much, by the time it was figured out, another war was underway.

    Meanwhile the soup kitchens had been finding real jobs and attracting well to do contractors and businessmen looking for good workers. There was no slacking, no idle hands. Everyone was moving up despite the government. Then the government stepped in, made false promises. And the rest is history.

    Similar scenario in Science.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  53. #52  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Certainly there is a difference!

    An object sliding down a ramp is accelerating due to gravity. It is definitely not in free fall.
    Actually, it is in free fall. In fact, everything is in free fall. The earths surface is accelerating up towards the sliding object, just as it is accelerating up towards us and everything else.

    Hence, the answer, "acceleration of free fall" is incorrect.
    I don't buy the earth is accelerating towards the car. I see the car pressed down to the earth, by "gravity velocity" ambient radiation.
    Then, tell me Bill, do you feel the "pressure" of being "pressed" down to the earth yourself? Or, do you feel no pressure at all and something pushing up the bottom of your feet?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, tell me Bill, do you feel the "pressure" of being "pressed" down to the earth yourself? Or, do you feel no pressure at all and something pushing up the bottom of your feet?
    I feel pressure down upon me. I feel like my feet are pressing on the ground.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, tell me Bill, do you feel the "pressure" of being "pressed" down to the earth yourself? Or, do you feel no pressure at all and something pushing up the bottom of your feet?
    I feel pressure down upon me. I feel like my feet are pressing on the ground.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    What about when you jump up in the air? Does the pressure get under your feet and lift you up?
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    I feel pressure down upon me. I feel like my feet are pressing on the ground.
    You feel pressure down upon you??? Your feet are pressing on the ground???

    See a doctor immediately.

    Those are concepts of action-at-a-distance. You are assuming that gravity is reaching out and pushing/pulling you down.

    The weak equivalence principle states that all objects in a gravitational field will undergo the exact same acceleration. Dropping various sized and composite objects in a vacuum will verify that as they all land at the same time.

    The only way that they can all land at the same time is if all objects are in free fall, no forces acting upon them whatsoever, and the surface of the earth accelerates towards them.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I feel pressure down upon me.
    To feel a gradient, you must be enormous, like, Earth sized... where are you posting from?

    Personally, all I imagine is the mass shadow of Earth, my own mass slips into... path of least resistance I suppose. Which is embarrassingly unorthodox but there it is in the bones. I've never felt like gravity is sucking. Either way, I can't truly sense gravity itself anymore than a sheet of glass in sunlight can sense light passing through it.

    Now Harold, (Q), do you guys feel the Earth sucking on you?
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    William,
    I may Not have made myself clear before. DO NOT POLLUTE THIS THREAD WITH YOUR INANE, INSANE, INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS.If you wish to debate the points you have raised please start a thread in the pseudoscience or General subforums. Do not post anymore of this nonsense here.
    If you choose to ignore this instruction you are looking at ban. You do not need to acknowledge this warning, simply stop posting crap here. (Though the inivitation to start a thread in the appropriate sub-forum remains open: you have the positive attribute of being entertaining in the same way a collapsing building is entertaining.)

    Ophiolite - in moderator mode.
     

  59. #58  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong

    Now Harold, (Q), do you guys feel the Earth sucking on you?
    Not at all.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I feel pressure down upon me. I feel like my feet are pressing on the ground.
    If you feel any downward pressure on you at all, it’s most likely atmospheric pressure – pressure of the atmosphere around you. However your body should be accustomed to this pressure and shouldn’t feel it at all – the body is in fact much more likely to “feel” the absence of normal atmospheric pressure on it (such as at high altitudes). Also, atmospheric pressure is not the same as gravity. Do not try and confuse the two.

    As for your feet on the ground, what you are feeling is actually ground “pressing” on your feet. When you are standing on level ground, there are two forces acting on you: your weight, and the normal reaction of the ground on you. The latter is what you are feeling. The force that your feet are exerting on the ground is felt by the ground (if it can be said to feel anything), not you.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    What about when you jump up in the air? Does the pressure get under your feet and lift you up?
    Not at all, I feel the pressure my feet had on the ground, relieved. Of course to jump I had to create, more pressure on the ground to create upward velocity, during an opposite reaction to pushing on the earth.
    The structure of my body, allows ambient radiation to move my body upward and not be torn apart. That ambient radiation carries my body, off the earth, against gravity, that is pushing me down and back to earth.

    I built human muscles when I was a kid, with balloons and string. I could not believe the power and engineering of human muscle design. It is the bow principle. The principle of muscle movement is electrical repulsion. Each little muscle cell, goes from a long muscle cell when relaxed. To a short fat round cell when it is tensed up. When you have a whole bunch of muscle cells together, in a chain. It creates a powerful, movement that pulls our bones, to where we want them.

    But it is all repulsion. Even the tendons and ligaments are just special structures that create the effect of pulling by repulsion, within interlocking structures. Almost like puzzle pieces.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I feel pressure down upon me. I feel like my feet are pressing on the ground.
    If you feel any downward pressure on you at all, it’s most likely atmospheric pressure – pressure of the atmosphere around you. However your body should be accustomed to this pressure and shouldn’t feel it at all – the body is in fact much more likely to “feel” the absence of normal atmospheric pressure on it (such as at high altitudes). Also, atmospheric pressure is not the same as gravity. Do not try and confuse the two.

    As for your feet on the ground, what you are feeling is actually ground “pressing” on your feet. When you are standing on level ground, there are two forces acting on you: your weight, and the normal reaction of the ground on you. The latter is what you are feeling. The force that your feet are exerting on the ground is felt by the ground (if it can be said to feel anything), not you.
    I am going to have to assume that you are serious. But when I go to lift my arm, I feel the pressure, pushing my arm down.

    If I don't continue to lift my arm up against the force of gravity, it will fall down. I know my arm is pressed down. I am not saying you have to know that. I am just saying I know that.

    As for the ground, I feel my weight, being pushed down to the earth. I feel the ground, as an object against my body, holding me up. I feel that I am creating the pressure on the earth.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am going to have to assume that you are serious. But when I go to lift my arm, I feel the pressure, pushing my arm down.

    If I don't continue to lift my arm up against the force of gravity, it will fall down.
    Why do you insist on calling that force "pressure"? Nobody else in the world does. The rest of the world has agreed to call pressure the force per unit area.
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Surely he means mass ...or volume? :? Not area.


    BTW William McCormick I guess you're cool to ...press... your theory of gravity here, as the OP clearly doesn't mind and everybody's curious, including me. But rambling wildly off this topic into American politics and muscle cells is sure to get you banned. I don't want that to happen.
     

  65. #64  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    This thread has been hijacked by William's delusions.
    I have clearly instructed William to desist from posting his nonsense in this thread. He has ignored this.

    Consequently I am locking this thread. Jane Bennett, if you are happy to have William's (entertaining) nonsense continue I shall reopen the thread and move it to pseudoscience. pm me if you wish this, or have other comments.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •