Science: questions and answers

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri May 20, 2011 8:20 pm

* This guy is funny and weird. His reasoning prods one to think about things we tend to take for granted. He was an NPA speaker recently, as mentioned at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4284&p=51961#p51555. * Pawel Kolasa <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX1IJ9eSBJ4> said:
* Centrifugal Force (CF): the apparent force that is felt by an object moving in a curved path that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation. If the Earth were rotating the CF would cause people, objects and valuable commodities to weigh less at the equator than at more northern or southern lines of latitude. The equation for Centrifugal Force is CF = (mass x velocity squared) over radius. That means that one could transport cargo ships full of valuable commodities from the equator where it would weigh less and then proceed to sell them up north or south for a higher price. Opponents admit that there is a weight difference but only 0.9%. That means that multimillion dollar commodity shipments would be missing thousands of tons...... but they are NOT!!*

* So can anyone tell us why people and everything weigh the same at the equator and the poles, when centrifugal force should reduce weight at the equator? The Earth is a globe spinning about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator and 0 mph at the poles. Gravity "pulls" inward evenly over the whole surface, but centrifugal force opposes gravity most at the equator, where there's the fastest motion.
* I think the reason centrifugal force doesn't have much effect on weight is because the Earth would have to be spinning quite a bit faster in order to reduce weight much at the equator. Since the Earth is almost 4,000 miles in radius, the 1,000 miles of motion in one hour would only involve almost straight motion and only a small percent of curved motion, maybe 2%. That's like moving 2 feet curved for every 100 feet straight.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby remelic » Fri May 20, 2011 9:15 pm

Gravity is not what you think it is.
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby flyingcloud » Sat May 21, 2011 12:41 am

as the earth is an oblate spheroid perhaps the added mass around the equator provides enough additional gravity to offset any reduction due to centrifugal force
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby platyhelminth » Sat May 21, 2011 6:56 am

There is gravity variation but it doesn't take account of poles and equator:
" A gravity anomaly is the difference between the observed acceleration of Earth's gravity and a value predicted from a model. "

Image

See also : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThcMzqlSwYo
" How the Earth would look like if its shape were distorted to make gravity the same everywhere on its surface. "
So ...
We will see if it is empirism versus dogmatism OR if it is just another battle between different dogmas.
platyhelminth
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon May 23, 2011 6:34 am

There is no way to know if weight changes by comparison because it can only be measured against a standard and that standard either moves around with you or is calibrated locally. For example, the batch of kilogram standards around the world are routinely compared for discepancies but obvoiusly this happens in one location. It wouldn't be possible to tell if they weighed 2% less at the pole as the only way to check would be at the pole against another standard in the batch. However, that standard would also be subject to a 2% loss and both would agree to each other!

Incidently, just for the growing earth theorists, the standard kilogram weights when taken as an average have all unexplicably gained weight (they say gained mass but we know better) on a regular basis since they were created 100 years ago...
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Electric Slingshot

Unread postby Sparky » Mon May 23, 2011 1:31 pm

If gravity is electrical....?

A satellite or a mass entering the gravitational field of a large mass will feel acceleration? The resultant gain in velocity is somewhat maintained if it is not captured and it continues on a new course.
NASA uses this "slingshot" maneuver to increase speed of satellites.

Now, the trick question...If light is bent around a large mass, lensing, does it's speed increase because of this slingshot effect?

Why not?! :D

I have seen abstracts that suggest that the for sale paper will explain photon acceleration...but, have not found out how photons can be accelerated...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 23, 2011 2:05 pm

Wikipedia says: they gain mass through adsorption of atmospheric contamination onto their surfaces. Accordingly, they are cleaned in a process the BIPM developed between 1939 and 1946.... Cleaning the prototypes removes between 5 and 60 µg of contamination depending largely on the time elapsed since the last cleaning. Further, a second cleaning can remove up to 10 µg more. [The] gain ... averaged 1.11 µg per month for the first 3 months after cleaning and then decreased to an average of about 1 µg per year thereafter.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Earth's Intrinsic Redshift

Unread postby Sparky » Mon May 23, 2011 3:52 pm

The Pound-Rebka Experiment took place at Harvard in 1959. It is said to be the first experiment to unequivocally prove gravitational blueshifts-

Well, they sorta proved that incoming radiation would blueshift due to gravity...We can infer that that also sorta proved that outgoing radiation would redshift because of Earth's gravitation. And since Earth's gravitation is somewhat constant, Earth will have an intrinsic redshift when viewed from outside .... :?:

Now for the "sorta's". Seems that there is a question about their math, and that is all the paper is about. There is agreement that gravitational shifting is possible, but no more mention of it in the mathematical proofs.

So, am i correct that Earth has an intrinsic redshift?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue May 24, 2011 4:50 am

Lloyd wrote:Wikipedia says: they gain mass through adsorption of atmospheric contamination onto their surfaces. Accordingly, they are cleaned in a process the BIPM developed between 1939 and 1946.... Cleaning the prototypes removes between 5 and 60 µg of contamination depending largely on the time elapsed since the last cleaning. Further, a second cleaning can remove up to 10 µg more. [The] gain ... averaged 1.11 µg per month for the first 3 months after cleaning and then decreased to an average of about 1 µg per year thereafter.
You missed a couple of important extracts.

Firstly, the air polution and cleaning of is taken into consideration, I'm talking about unknown drift (my highlight);

Wikipedia wrote:Beyond the simple wear that check standards can experience, the mass of even the carefully stored national prototypes can drift relative to the IPK for a variety of reasons, some known and some unknown.
And the sign of the unknown drift (my highlight)?

Wikipedia wrote:The reason for this drift has eluded physicists who have dedicated their careers to the SI unit of mass. No plausible mechanism has been proposed to explain either a steady decrease in the mass of the IPK, or an increase in that of its replicas dispersed throughout the world.[Note 13][15][16][17] This relative nature of the changes amongst the world’s kilogram prototypes is often misreported in the popular press, and even some notable scientific magazines, which often state that the IPK simply “lost 50 µg” and omit the very important caveat of “in comparison to its official copies.”[Note 14] Moreover, there are no technical means available to determine whether or not the entire worldwide ensemble of prototypes suffers from even greater long-term trends upwards or downwards because their mass “relative to an invariant of nature is unknown at a level below 1000 µg over a period of 100 or even 50 years.”[14] Given the lack of data identifying which of the world’s kilogram prototypes has been most stable in absolute terms, it is equally as valid to state that the first batch of replicas has, as a group, gained an average of about 25 µg over one hundred years in comparison to the IPK.[Note 15]


It's not proof becasue there is no way to determine weight accurately, but of course, according to the establishment which "knows" matter cannot gain weight, it's better for their sanity to conclude IPK has lost some unknown weight but yet again, if you accept the possiblilty that the Earh is growing, another physical anomaly can be easily explained.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Osmosis » Tue May 24, 2011 7:10 am

If Earth is growing, wouldn't satellites orbits get longer? :?: :?:
Osmosis
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Why We Weigh the Same at Equator & Poles

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue May 24, 2011 7:30 am

Osmosis wrote:If Earth is growing, wouldn't satellites orbits get longer? :?: :?:

As all satellites are regularly adjusted because of orbit drift (caused by numerous other anomalies) there is no way to tell.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Electric Slingshot

Unread postby Drethon » Thu May 26, 2011 6:28 am

I am not an expert to blast away if I got this wrong but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

Gravitational slingshot is not based purely on gravity but also on the orbital velocity of the object. Since the planet (or moon) is moving the point where the gravity is pulling in is as well. So long as you want to go approximately in the direction the planet is orbiting you can pick up a little speed from this (and probably slow the planet minutely).

It is an interesting idea if light could be accelerated if traveling in the same direction of a mass it encounters.

I tend to lean towards light being radiated by a medium (ether) like sound waves so that would mean light has no velocity, only a propagation rate but if light is photons then this could have an effect...

Just my bent $0.02
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Electric Slingshot

Unread postby redeye » Thu May 26, 2011 8:31 am

Gravitational slingshot is not based purely on gravity but also on the orbital velocity of the object.


I thought that a gravitational slingshot was acheived by stealing some of the angular momentum of the planet (or star) in question, but the wiki page states that it is orbital velocity that is used.
When using a slingshot to move sunwards about half as much momentum is gained compared to a slingshot moving out from the Sun. This was highlighted during the various slingshots carried out by the Cassini probe's journey to Saturn. I don't know why this would happen?

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Electric Slingshot

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 26, 2011 9:12 am

Drethon , "So long as you want to go approximately in the direction the planet is orbiting you can pick up a little speed from this -"


Thank you, that is interesting. Is there a name for that effect?




redeye," When using a slingshot to move sunwards about half as much momentum is gained compared to a slingshot moving out from the Sun."


Thank you for your input.. that is strange! My intuition would say the opposite, if gravity were the main force.


Careful what one believes from Wiki...well, from any "expert".,,,they may have been taught wrongly, and used their intellect to magnify that error.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Earth's Intrinsic Redshift

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 26, 2011 11:14 am

Hmmmmm, so i will now play the part of a highly educated and theoretical math true believer astrophysicist. It is not gravity that is causing the apparent red shift, it is the inflation of space/time.

:roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest