# Thread: Is gravity merely thrust?

1. Hi, my name is Richard and this is my first post here. I do not have any academic qualifications in science but I am bright and have ideas. I think mostly in terms of mathematics which of course goes hand in hand with physics. This morning I woke up like a bolt and started having these ideas about gravity. The thing that has always bothered me is that we describe graivty as being a mythical mysterious thing and in my mind I want it to be nothing but a simple physical process. It's described as a force of attraction like it has something to do with sex, perhaps because that's how we tick. I want to write this in a way that does not sound pseudo but it might come across that way because it's a new idea, to me at least anyhow. I apologise if I should have posted this in the pseudo board however as you will see, I am talking about very simple and basic physics which I cannot at the moment see an argument against.

We all know e=mc2 and this little formula has been stuck in my head for years. It describes energy, mass and light being closely related to one another. Energy relates to temperature, so therefore temperature relates to mass and light or the perception of it at least. Space is extremely cold and contains very little mass, or is it cold because it contains very little mass, does mass always retain some energy/temperature? What is the temperature at the core of an asteroid in deep space? Of course any slight radiation from a star would heat mass up considerably relative to the surrounding space.

This whole idea is based on mass always having a slightly higher temperature than the surrounding space, even if it's just a few kelvin. So then some simple physics, what happens when something very hot comes into contact with something very cold? There is an explosive type force right, thrust or replusion depending on your point of view? An example that comes to mind is under water lava flows, the lava appears to be contained and compressed through nothing other than a difference in temperature.

In space mass is surrounded by very low temperatures and if I assume that mass always retains more temperature than space, well then shouldn't we expect to see some containment and compression forces surrounding the entire mass? Einstein talked about he fabric of space time which relates to distance and light, but he could also have said the suspension of temperature/energy. Attraction between two objects occurs because as they near one another, they raise the temperature in the space between which reduces the containment/compression force created by space in that area while the force on the opposite sides remains unchanged, the end result is that the two object thrust together. Gravity makes it appear like objects are magically attracted to one another but that's surely because that's all we're forcused on and all we can see. Cold space exists also and it takes considerable energy for us to create extremely low temperatures on Earth, so we should surely consider the abundance of extremely low temperatures in space as an abundance of potentional energy?

Could it be that gravity is nothing more than thrust? Creating apparent anti gravity would seem simple then, create a hot ball, surround it with extremely low temperatures and it would appear that the object has very little mass because it would be creating thrust in all directions equally. It could weigh 100kg and a flick of finger could send to outer space if the thrust is high enough. It is said that the force of gravity is extremely weak, well this idea relates to that. Two asteroids might only create a force no greater than the push from one arm, but that might be enough to bring them closer and as they get closer the thrust will increase.

If any of this is true, well it throws open the whole debate on our perception of other observations. For example, light has some mass/energy/temperature which can also be contained by being surrounded by extremely low temperatures, therefore the further away from a star light gets, the slower it travels. The temperatures are lower so light particles are thrusted closer together more which reduces their energy and speed. So perhaps our perception of distance is not accurate until we account for the temperature in the space between objects. Why did einstein say the speed of light is a constant? We know that light cannot escape from a black hole, does that mean that light goes from our constant speed for light to zero in an instant, i.e. light cannot accelerate and deccelerate?

2.

3. I see a lot of text, but no equations. Therefore, I'm going to have to say "no".

4. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Energy relates to temperature
Not necessarily.
KE doesn't relate to temp. PE doesn't. Chemical energy can raise temperature. Etc.

Space is extremely cold
Space has no temperature.
It's cold in shadow, it's hot in sunlight.

does mass always retain some energy/temperature?
What?

This whole idea is based on mass always having a slightly higher temperature than the surrounding space, even if it's just a few kelvin.
But that's not true.

So then some simple physics, what happens when something very hot comes into contact with something very cold? There is an explosive type force right, thrust or replusion depending on your point of view?
No. Wrong. (Except as mentioned below).

An example that comes to mind is under water lava flows, the lava appears to be contained and compressed through nothing other than a difference in temperature.
You don't think the "explosive force" could be due to the water being boiled, turning into gas at a much higher volume than the original water and thereby exerting pressure?

In space mass is surrounded by very low temperatures and if I assume that mass always retains more temperature than space
Your assumption is incorrect.

well then shouldn't we expect to see some containment and compression forces surrounding the entire mass?
No.

Einstein talked about he fabric of space time which relates to distance and light, but he could also have said the suspension of temperature/energy.
Only if he wanted to be wrong.

Attraction between two objects occurs because as they near one another, they raise the temperature in the space between which reduces the containment/compression force created by space in that area while the force on the opposite sides remains unchanged, the end result is that the two object thrust together.
Yet haven't you said (and I quote) "when something very hot comes into contact with something very cold ... There is an explosive type force right, thrust or replusion"?

so we should surely consider the abundance of extremely low temperatures in space as an abundance of potentional energy?
So, contrary to your first premise - "Energy relates to temperature, so therefore temperature relates to mass ... Space is extremely cold and contains very little mass, or is it cold because it contains very little mass" - i.e. more mass, more energy, higher temp, you're now saying low temp = more energy?

Could it be that gravity is nothing more than thrust?
No.

Creating apparent anti gravity would seem simple then, create a hot ball, surround it with extremely low temperatures and it would appear that the object has very little mass because it would be creating thrust in all directions equally.
Or, and this is just a wild mental exercise, we get, say, something as big and hot as the Sun, stick it in space (low temperature) and would appear to have very little mass! Oh, hang on...

If any of this is true
It's not. Therefore...

well it throws open the whole debate on our perception of other observations.
...debate aborted.

For example, light has some mass/energy/temperature
Light doesn't have mass.

The temperatures are lower so light particles are thrusted closer together more which reduces their energy and speed.
Light ALWAYS travels at the same speed - c.

Why did einstein say the speed of light is a constant?
Well, one reason is that it is.

We know that light cannot escape from a black hole, does that mean that light goes from our constant speed for light to zero in an instant
No. It's because the gravity for a BH is such that the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light. It's not the same as "light speed dropping to zero".

5. Man, what a confused mess ...

Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
I think mostly in terms of mathematics
I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that from your post.

The thing that has always bothered me is that we describe graivty as being a mythical mysterious thing
No we don't. It is extremely well understood. (Which isn't to say there aren't still some questions.)

We all know e=mc2 and this little formula has been stuck in my head for years. It describes energy, mass and light being closely related to one another.
It relates mass and energy but it has nothing to with light (except that light is a form of energy). The cs is simply a constant of proportionality of the arbitrary man-made units of mass and energy (kg, joules, etc.) we use. If we used different units then it wouldn't be needed.

Space is extremely cold and contains very little mass, or is it cold because it contains very little mass,
It is cold because it is far from sources of heat.

does mass always retain some energy/temperature?
No.

What is the temperature at the core of an asteroid in deep space?
It will be in thermal equilibrium with the space around it apart from any heating due to radioactive elements it contains or sunlight falling on t.

This whole idea is based on mass always having a slightly higher temperature than the surrounding space, even if it's just a few kelvin.
Then it won't work.

So then some simple physics, what happens when something very hot comes into contact with something very cold? There is an explosive type force right
Not necessarily. And the hot thing and the cold thing will rapidly come to the same temperature and any "explosive type force" will be gone.

An example that comes to mind is under water lava flows, the lava appears to be contained and compressed through nothing other than a difference in temperature.
Lava is just a very viscous liquid. I don't understand wjhat you mean by "contained and compressed".

In space mass is surrounded by very low temperatures and if I assume that mass always retains more temperature than space, well then shouldn't we expect to see some containment and compression forces surrounding the entire mass?
No, because they will rapidly reach the same temperature.

Einstein talked about he fabric of space time which relates to distance and light,
No, it relates to space and time.

but he could also have said the suspension of temperature/energy.
Why would he have said such a thing? The theory of relativity is simply derived from Maxwell's equations and the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and at any speed (i.e. independent of space and time). The "suspension of temperature/energy" don't come into it.

Could it be that gravity is nothing more than thrust?
No. (Although gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable, so in that sense there is an equivalence.)

Creating apparent anti gravity would seem simple then, create a hot ball, surround it with extremely low temperatures and it would appear that the object has very little mass because it would be creating thrust in all directions equally.
We have created many very hot objects. Their mass does not change. They do not appear to create anti-gravity.

Note that science requires more than just a fertile imagination. You need some evidence (and, ideally, some math) to support your ideas.

Why did einstein say the speed of light is a constant?
Because both evidence and theory say it is, so he adopted it as a postulate of his theory.

We know that light cannot escape from a black hole, does that mean that light goes from our constant speed for light to zero in an instant, i.e. light cannot accelerate and deccelerate?
Correct.

6. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
I see a lot of text, but no equations. Therefore, I'm going to have to say "no".
Text on a discussion forum, surely not? I would love to post some equations but I'm not qualified.

When the lava explodes the water rushes back against it and compresses it, in this instanace yes it's pressure from the water turning to gas that causes the thrust but a temperature difference is still the cause. That is what gravity is, it's a constant and smooth outward radiation of matter being constantly and smoothly compressed by what is essentially nothing i.e. no energy/temperature/matter/light and this creates thrust. The force isn't created by the nothingness flowing like gas or liquid, matter does not automatically flow into nothingness, nothingness is always every where so long as there isn't matter and energy. The reason gravity works over such long distances is because thrust is unaffected by nothingness. If nothingness coming into contact with matter creates thrust, well the matter will push in on itself and there will be a pull in the opposite direction which can affect surrounding matter. That's what thrust is, push one way and travel in the opposite way, the reason we don't see gravity as thrust is because we associate thrust with movement. Well gravity does create movement when two objects near each other but it's hard to see thrust on a single object when the thrust doesn't appear to have any affect on motion. The thrust is only seen as compression and there is no motion relative to other objects because the thrust is eqaul in all directions. Thrust in and of itself does not reduce mass, it does however surely affect the ability to move mass. The more energy an object radiates, the easier it is to manipulate that objects position. Gravity relates to surface area in contact with space as well as the temperature being radiated out from a mass. This is why dieing stars are so explosive, they expand and create a huge level of compression against space which eventually backfires.

I have just read all of the other replies and will try to reply if I get time.

7. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Is it just me or is the above post pure gibberish?

There's no physics here, move to pseudo please mods.
Think hypothesis is more respectful. Man didn't need books to create fire, only needed idea and thought. Evidently there are many academics here, so I will take this discussion else where, never ceases to amaze me how closed off some people are.

8. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
When the lava explodes the water rushes back against it and compresses it, in this instanace yes it's pressure from the water turning to gas that causes the thrust but a temperature difference is still the cause.
The temperature difference is the cause of the water turning into steam. That steam is the cause for the pressure. I.e. the pressure is "incidental" to the temperature.

That is what gravity is, it's a constant and smooth outward radiation of matter being constantly and smoothly compressed by what is essentially nothing i.e. no energy/temperature/matter/light and this creates thrust.
Gravity is not thrust.
And gravity isn't gas pressure.

The force isn't created by the nothingness flowing like gas or liquid, matter does not automatically flow into nothingness
What?

nothingness is always every where so long as there isn't matter and energy.
Er yes. Somewhat tautological, but...

The reason gravity works over such long distances is because thrust is unaffected by nothingness.
Um, haven't you just said that "nothingness" only occurs when there's no energy or matter? And isn't space full of one or the other? Doesn't that mean that there's no "nothingness" in space" And wouldn't THAT mean that the "thrust" from gravity doesn't propagate over long distances?

If nothingness coming into contact with matter creates thrust
It doesn't.

well the matter will push in on itself and there will be a pull in the opposite direction which can affect surrounding matter. That's what thrust is, push one way and travel in the opposite way, the reason we don't see gravity as thrust is because we associate thrust with movement. Well gravity does create movement when two objects near each other but it's hard to see thrust on a single object when the thrust doesn't appear to have any affect on motion. The thrust is only seen as compression and there is no motion relative to other objects because the thrust is eqaul in all directions. Thrust in and of itself does not reduce mass, it does however surely affect the ability to move mass. The more energy an object radiates, the easier it is to manipulate that objects position. Gravity relates to surface area in contact with space as well as the temperature being radiated out from a mass. This is why dieing stars are so explosive, they expand and create a huge level of compression against space which eventually backfires.
In other words you haven't taken in a single thing that's been said to you.
It has been pointed out where, and how, you are wrong.
Yet you're still making claims... ones which are getting increasingly ridiculous and less scientific.

And you claimed that you're bright.

@ PhDemon: yup, Pseudo (or Trash).

9. Moved to pseudoscience.

10. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
The reason gravity works over such long distances is because thrust is unaffected by nothingness.
Um, haven't you just said that "nothingness" only occurs when there's no energy or matter? And isn't space full of one or the other? Doesn't that mean that there's no "nothingness" in space" And wouldn't THAT mean that the "thrust" from gravity doesn't propagate over long distances?
Force isn't matter and when I say nothingness I don't mean absoloutely nothing, I mean extremely low temperatures. If you create an explosion in space there is a lot of compression and the matter is contained but the energy from the explosion still travels some distance. Same thing happens under water and the reason is because an extreme temperature difference creates a lot of compression. High temperature always wants to expand, low temperature always wants to contain.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
If nothingness coming into contact with matter creates thrust
It doesn't.
OK thanks, glad you cleared that up for me. I try not get sarcastic with people but there is just no hope for some.

11. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Evidently there are many academics here, so I will take this discussion else where, never ceases to amaze me how closed off some people are.
Why shouldn't we be closed off to something that is clearly so far away from known physics?

In the opening post, you offered an idea that was subsequently established to be wrong, and now you are sticking with it?

12. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
I would love to post some equations but I'm not qualified.
Clearly. Which makes this all the more ridiculous:

Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
I think mostly in terms of mathematics

13. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Evidently there are many academics here, so I will take this discussion else where, never ceases to amaze me how closed off some people are.
I assumed you wanted some feedback on your ideas. If all you want is praise for your "clever idea", then stay away from science sites. I'm sure there are some science fiction forums or something which will appreciate your imagination.

14. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Force isn't matter
Where did anyone mention "force"?
(And you do know what "force" is, don't you?)

and when I say nothingness I don't mean absoloutely nothing, I mean extremely low temperatures.
You stated, and I quote, "nothingness is always every where so long as there isn't matter and energy".
Space is full of energy - even in the parts where there's no matter.
That's why I wrote - isn't space full of one or the other?

If you create an explosion in space there is a lot of compression
If you create an explosion anywhere there's "compression".
But considerably LESS so in space than in an atmosphere for example (depending on where/ how you define "compression 1).

and the matter is contained but the energy from the explosion still travels some distance.
What nonsense.
The matter is spread out by the explosion,
The energy is transferred by the matter.

Same thing happens under water and the reason is because an extreme temperature difference creates a lot of compression.
This has been explained to you twice now.

High temperature always wants to expand, low temperature always wants to contain.
A generalisation: water expands when cooled. Some materials shrink when heated.

OK thanks, glad you cleared that up for me. I try not get sarcastic with people but there is just no hope for some.
Maybe if you listened and took note, instead of simply carrying on postulating even more rubbish, there'd be some hope for you.

1 You do seem to have a predilection for vague (mis)use of terminology.

15. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Man didn't need books to create fire, only needed idea and thought.
Yep.
GOOD ideas and RATIONAL thought.

Evidently there are many academics here
There's also many scientists here.

never ceases to amaze me how closed off some people are.
Which describes yourself: WE, on the other hand, have read your claims, considered them and pointed out the errors.
You are the one insisting (against the evidence and the facts) that there is some merit to your "idea".

16. So how can I test if extreme temperature difference creates thrust, that's all I want to know? How can I supply a constant 5K against let's say a constant 100'C and then measure if any thrust is created between the objects? It's childish and unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to do that, all I'm interested in is discussing the physics of what would happen. You say one would eventually overwhelm the other, no the temperature supply is constant. It's quite obvious what would happen, if you put a hot knife in liquid nitrogen it would crack and fragment and possible cause an explosion because of the extreme temperature difference. If you put two plates together one at 5K and the other at 100'C, there would be an explosive force between the two and they would want to thrust apart. The problem is we assoiciate explosive power with high temperatures, but temperature is relative and it's extreme difference in temperature that causes explosive power.

17. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Man didn't need books to create fire, only needed idea and thought.
But he DID need science to understand its nature.

18. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
So how can I test if extreme temperature difference creates thrust, that's all I want to know?
What do you mean "test"?
REALITY shows that it doesn't.
Did you miss my example with the Sun?

It's childish and unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to do that, all I'm interested in is discussing the physics of what would happen.
No, it's childish and unrealistic to persist in this when you have already been shown that you are wrong.
You haven't got any physics to discuss.

You say one would eventually overwhelm the other, no the temperature supply is constant.
Bull. You can't "supply temperature".

It's quite obvious what would happen, if you put a hot knife in liquid nitrogen it would crack and fragment and possible cause an explosion because of the extreme temperature difference.
No it wouldn't.

If you put two plates together one at 5K and the other at 100'C, there would be an explosive force between the two and they would want to thrust apart.
No there wouldn't.

The problem is we assoiciate explosive power with high temperatures, but temperature is relative and it's extreme difference in temperature that causes explosive power.
Crap.
It's the expansion of the gases - more specifically, the speed of the expansion of those gases 1 - as previously explained.
It's not "relative" at all.

1 And that's dictated by the energy in whatever's exploding.

19. It's days like this that give me real hope that we as a species won't end up as just another layer of rock that no one will ever know or give a damn about. Incredibly depressing talking to you guys, have a good one.

20. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
It's days like this that give me real hope that we as a species won't end up as just another layer of rock that no one will ever know or give a damn about. Incredibly depressing talking to you guys, have a good one.
I find it very depressing that people like you prefer ignorance to trying to learn and understand the world.

Luckily, there are still enough intelligent, open minded people willing to learn and actually make a difference, rather than indulging in immature mental masturbation.

21. Well now you're just trying to wind me so you have an excuse to ban me which is even more depressing. You talked about the sun and I don't really know what you meant, can you elaborate? You don't seem to have understood the concept at all, if you were a true scientist you would try to desconstruct my idea thoroughly and explore all avenues. You can start with, is an extreme difference in temperature capable of producing thrust? You will say no and give no reason as to why, which is arrogant and ignorant.

22. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Incredibly depressing talking to you guys, have a good one.
It's hard to accept that you don't know what you're talking about. Chin up. You'll get there.

23. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
if you were a true scientist you would try to desconstruct my idea thoroughly and explore all avenues.
I find this notion silly. Everyone who comes on here with some lame-brain idea about the inner workings of the most complex idea in physics or mathematics thinks that the experts out there OWE them an explanation as to why they are wrong. Why should anyone waste time disproving something when you have displayed an inability to accept facts or logic? It's called leading a horse to water. It's futile and frustrating and it seems most of us would rather put effort into mocking you than go through it over and over and over.

24. I haven't seen any facts or any science from you guys at all, that's why I posted to have a conversation but evidently this place is run by trolls. I'm not a troll, why the hell would I waste time posting all that text if I didn't think there was something in it? You seem only interested in belittling members who share their ideas and guys, I bet I earn more than all of you combiined and if you had made a name for yourself in science you wouldn't be wasting your time making 50+ posts a day on public forums, so there you go - that's belittling for you. But honestly I don't care for names or recognition, am only interested in truth.

25. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Then you are even more clueless than you seem.
What has that got to do with anything, I'm not intersted in you and you are not intersted in me. We are only interested in science, so tell me, why wouldn't thrust be created when two plates are held together with a force of 100kg at a fixed position, one is cooled by convection to 5K and that temperature is sustained, the other is sustained at 100'C? You saying that 100kg would not budge at all, I say the force would decrease maybe even exceed 100kg.

26. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
I haven't seen any facts or any science from you guys at all
See posts 4, 5, 9, 15, 19. They break down what you said and demonstrate your error. You inability to comprehend that is why this thread has turned into trash.

My suggestion; if you're going to make posts about physics or mathematics and you want them to be taken seriously, you should make SOME attempt to include the math behind your reasoning.

27. So so far I've got "it wouldn't happen" and then vague riddly answers to things that avoid the question entirely. When something hot meets something cold there is usually always a reaction, sometimes a violent reaction. If the reaction is contained and compressed there is sustained thrust. I cannot say it in more simple terms.

28. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
So so far I've got "it wouldn't happen" and then vague riddly answers to things that avoid the question entirely.
So be scientific about it.

Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
When something hot meets something cold there is usually always a reaction, sometimes a violent reaction.
Example? Can you show me the physics or chemistry to explain what you're talking about?

All YOU'RE offering is vague "riddly" explanations for this idea of yours.

29. No mate, that's why I come to a science forum. Forget that test then if you're not interested in it. Take the grenade going off in space scenario, the temperature from the explosion is contained and there is a small ball of light which quickly disappears back in on itself, also the pieces of the grenade don't explode out very far, in fact the compression might mean some pieces remain in a clump at the center of the explosion after the explosion. Doesn't it take a huge amount of force to contain a grenade explosion, what is that force in space?

30. I'm not a troll, why the hell would I waste time posting all that text if I didn't think there was something in it?
I don't think you're a troll. I think you're a crank.

31. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Take the grenade going off in space scenario...
Okay, but what if we consider a drunken leprechaun with termites in his pants in space...

Honestly, I can't handle this philosophical approach to physics. It gives me heartburn.

32. Take the grenade going off in space scenario, the temperature from the explosion is contained and there is a small ball of light which quickly disappears back in on itself, also the pieces of the grenade don't explode out very far, in fact the compression might mean some pieces remain in a clump at the center of the explosion after the explosion. Doesn't it take a huge amount of force to contain a grenade explosion, what is that force in space?
When a chemical explosion takes place in space, the temperature is not contained to a small area, the light produced does not disappear back in on itself, and the pieces of the grenade expand without limit.

You've been watching too many bad science fiction movies.

You're a simple crank.

33. It's a completely fictional scenario. Why would the light "disappear back in on itself"? In what universe do pieces resulting from an explosion in a frictionless vacuum "not explode out very far"?

This is bordering on even belonging in pseudoscience.

34. Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained. Am done here guys, cannot have a simple conversation with you and you're evidently not too bright. I don't think you have any idea what would happen with the plates test, if you do please elaborate otherwise say you don't know or say nothing.

35. Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained
Why would you think that no air in space would result in the containment of chemical energy? You're lack of physics knowledge is astounding.

Am done here guys
You keep promising but you keep showing back up.

36. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
When something hot meets something cold there is usually always a reaction, sometimes a violent reaction. If the reaction is contained and compressed there is sustained thrust. I cannot say it in more simple terms.
Pour hot water into a cold glass and it will probably break. Drop an object at room temperature into liquid nitrogen and it will make the nitrogen boil furiously.

Is that the sort of thing you are thinking about?

But in a few seconds, the temperatures will have equalised. The glass will just remain broken. The nitrogen will stop boiling. There is no sustained reaction.

This is basic thermodynamics. The sort of thing any budding scientist should be familiar with.

You are ignoring the most fundamental principles of sciance and coming up with a fantasy scenario that obviously won't work (because of those basic principles that you have ignored). Don't be surprised then, when people tell you it won't work.

But also, we have a really, really good explanation of gravity. It says what it is and how it works. It has been tested to ridiculous levels of precision in many different environments.

So, firstly, you need to say what is wrong with the current theory that your idea can do better.

Secondly, you need to show that your idea can make predictions that match observation or experiment. Without that it is worthless (as well as fundamentally wrong).

Is that sufficiently non-riddly for you?

37. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained. Am done here guys, cannot have a simple conversation with you and you're evidently not too bright. I don't think you have any idea what would happen with the plates test, if you do please elaborate otherwise say you don't know or say nothing.
The explosion is contained because there is no air?

What does that even mean?

38. Originally Posted by AlexG
Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained
Why would you think that no air in space would result in the containment of chemical energy? You're lack of physics knowledge is astounding.

Am done here guys
You keep promising but you keep showing back up.
Your attempts to belittle me are pathetic! Most explosive reactions need oxygen. If you let me have the final word I'll leave, deal?

39. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained. Am done here guys, cannot have a simple conversation with you and you're evidently not too bright. I don't think you have any idea what would happen with the plates test, if you do please elaborate otherwise say you don't know or say nothing.
The explosion is contained because there is no air?

What does that even mean?
Are you serious man, no oxygen. You knew it, I knew it, all you've done is prove you're only interested in being a pain.

40. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Most explosive reactions need oxygen.
In an explosive device like a grenade the oxygen (*) comes from the chemicals used to make the explosive.

If you let me have the final word I'll leave, deal?
Stop being wrong and you can have the final word.

(*) Although, most high explosives don't rely on oxygen.

41. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Are you serious man, no oxygen. You knew it, I knew it, all you've done is prove you're only interested in being a pain.
I don't think I understand all of this beating around the bush and trying to be clever nonsense. How does an explosion in space (assuming the vessel contains oxygen or is otherwise explosive) create a burst of light that travels outward, stops, then turns around and travels back inward? How do the fragments "not travel very far"?

I think you're just covering up your gibberish phony science with attempts at being clever because you don't know what you're talking about.

42. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
You talked about the sun and I don't really know what you meant, can you elaborate?
Maybe if you actually read what I'd written...
I'll quote it here:
You: Creating apparent anti gravity would seem simple then, create a hot ball, surround it with extremely low temperatures and it would appear that the object has very little mass because it would be creating thrust in all directions equally.
Me: Or, and this is just a wild mental exercise, we get, say, something as big and hot as the Sun, stick it in space (low temperature) and would appear to have very little mass! Oh, hang on...
In other words the Sun is very hot thing surrounded by lots of cold.
There is no "thrust" outwards from the Sun.

You don't seem to have understood the concept at all
And you, obviously, don't understand science.

if you were a true scientist you would try to desconstruct my idea thoroughly and explore all avenues.
That's been done. At length.

You can start with, is an extreme difference in temperature capable of producing thrust? You will say no and give no reason as to why, which is arrogant and ignorant.
What?
Reality shows that it doesn't.
There is no mechanism for it to do so.
Do you need an explanation "why" ice doesn't cause a nuclear explosion?
That's equivalent (as far as actual sense goes) to what you're asking for a "reason why not" here.

43. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Take the grenade going off in space scenario, the temperature from the explosion is contained
No it's not.

and there is a small ball of light which quickly disappears back in on itself
No there isn't.

also the pieces of the grenade don't explode out very far
Bullshit - they'd travel considerably fuher than they would on Earth, and, if in, for example, interstellar space would effectively travel forever.

in fact the compression might mean some pieces remain in a clump at the center of the explosion after the explosion.
Crap.

Doesn't it take a huge amount of force to contain a grenade explosion, what is that force in space?
There is no "force" in space containing the explosion.

44. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Well it was a trick question, there's no air in space, that's why the explosion is contained.
Er, if a grenade was dependant on external oxygen to explode then the explosion wouldn't be "contained" in space because there would be no explosion at all.

45. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Originally Posted by Flick Montana
I see a lot of text, but no equations. Therefore, I'm going to have to say "no".
Text on a discussion forum, surely not? I would love to post some equations but I'm not qualified.
.
Up till thispoint your post was excellent.

Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
When the lava explodes the water rushes back against it and compresses it, in this instanace yes it's pressure from the water turning to gas that causes the thrust but a temperature difference is still the cause. That is what gravity is, it's a constant and smooth outward radiation of matter being constantly and smoothly compressed by what is essentially nothing i.e. no energy/temperature/matter/light and this creates thrust. The force isn't created by the nothingness flowing like gas or liquid, matter does not automatically flow into nothingness, nothingness is always every where so long as there isn't matter and energy. The reason gravity works over such long distances is because thrust is unaffected by nothingness. If nothingness coming into contact with matter creates thrust, well the matter will push in on itself and there will be a pull in the opposite direction which can affect surrounding matter. That's what thrust is, push one way and travel in the opposite way, the reason we don't see gravity as thrust is because we associate thrust with movement. Well gravity does create movement when two objects near each other but it's hard to see thrust on a single object when the thrust doesn't appear to have any affect on motion. The thrust is only seen as compression and there is no motion relative to other objects because the thrust is eqaul in all directions. Thrust in and of itself does not reduce mass, it does however surely affect the ability to move mass. The more energy an object radiates, the easier it is to manipulate that objects position. Gravity relates to surface area in contact with space as well as the temperature being radiated out from a mass. This is why dieing stars are so explosive, they expand and create a huge level of compression against space which eventually backfires.
But here it went rapidly downhill.

You describe yourself as bright. I hope you can, therefore, understand that if you are not qualified to express ideas about the fundamental nature of gravity in equations then you are not qualified to have an opinion about gravity. Would you accept my thoughts on how to deal with a ruptured appendix just because I was bright and had some ideas?

I think if you would genuinely like to use your brightness to understand the excellent ideas that already exist about gravity there are many here who are qualified to help you. If, however, you just wish to offload idel thoughts you may find some hostility towards those posts.

46. Originally Posted by ? + 3 = ?
Think hypothesis is more respectful. Man didn't need books to create fire, only needed idea and thought. Evidently there are many academics here, so I will take this discussion else where, never ceases to amaze me how closed off some people are.
Let's say that you were an expert in golf. Some random spectator walks up to you and says "I got this idea. You guys shouldn't hit the ball the way you've been taught. You should wiggle your hips three times in the direction of Andromeda first, then whistle twelve bars of 'God Save the Queen,' after which you should then recite a couple of lines from The Tempest."

What would your reaction be? Wouldn't you suggest that this spectator go off and learn something about golf first, before presuming to dissert about it? How "open-minded" should you be?

Physics is hard. Very hard. Understanding it does not come from a casual reading of pop-sci books, nor from newspapers. People who were not even average students in high school science mysteriously feel competent to opine about deep scientific matters with a level of confidence that never ceases to amaze me. When met with the inevitable disappointment, the tired old charge of "you guys are closed-minded and 'in-the-box' thinkers" gets trotted out.

Now, as a constructive suggestion, I offer this: Learn something real about the actual state of scientific theories. Ask questions. And don't be so arrogant to think that you'll be able to come up with something new that actually works. Don't be upset when those who have a real science education react negatively without seeming to have considered your idea carefully. In truth, we've likely heard it all many times before. That's not close-minded; that's educated.

47. Originally Posted by tk421
People who were not even average students in high school science mysteriously feel competent to opine about deep scientific matters with a level of confidence that never ceases to amaze me.
Dunning–Kruger effect
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

It could almost be considered normal.

48. Moved to pseudoscience.
lol, that is funny. I laughed out loud. I'm new to this forum so how would this question have gotten moved? Enough people voted on it?

49. Originally Posted by anticorncob28
Moved to pseudoscience.
lol, that is funny. I laughed out loud. I'm new to this forum so how would this question have gotten moved? Enough people voted on it?
The moderator or administrator independently determined the value of the thread. The OP should consider it a compliment that it went to pseudo instead of the trash.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement