Weight

[sjw40364]

Weight is determined on earth by distance of any mass from its surface (the point of strongest gravitational and E/M attraction). We know an electron has mass and therefore weight, but do we really understand this? Would the same electron on the surface of the Sun weigh the same amount as one on the surface of the earth or one in deep space?

if weight is due to gravity, then the answer must be an emphatic "no". So how much of physics is wrong simply because we assume the weight of an electron as being a constant as we determine here on the surface of the earth? Likewise its mass would increase or decrease depending on its relation to a gravitational/EM source. This makes almost every calculation wrong as it now becomes variable upon variable upon variable, each variable depending on relation to another mass (itself a variable depending on nearness to any other mass). A one pound gold bar if taken into space or below the surface of the earth will no longer weigh one pound, yet is still composed of the same electrons, protons, neutrons as when measured on the surface. So these protons, electrons and neutrons cannot be constant in weight but instead are inter-related depending on nearness to any others. Two electrons close together would therefore each weigh more than a single electron by itself.

[tayga]

So how much of physics is wrong simply because we assume the weight of an electron as being a constant as we determine here on the surface of the earth?

Exactly who makes this assumption?

Weight is a force, measured in Newtons, not to be confused with mass, measured in kilograms.

Given that the mass of the Sun is greater than the mass of the Earth, why would anyone think an electron weighs the same near either body?

[sjw40364]

So how much of physics is wrong simply because we assume the weight of an electron as being a constant as we determine here on the surface of the earth?

Exactly who makes this assumption?

Weight is a force, measured in Newtons, not to be confused with mass, measured in kilograms.

Given that the mass of the Sun is greater than the mass of the Earth, why would anyone think an electron weighs the same near either body?

Electrons are said to have a mass equal to 1/1836 of a proton. Where, on earth? We have recently discovered that the radius of the proton might not be what we thought it was and scientists are concerned that might affect many theories. The mass of a proton would change simply because its nearness to a gravity field, and so too would its radius as it increased in mass it would decrease in radius due to pressure. You might be surprised at how many theories are based upon this.

[tayga]

The mass of a proton would change simply because its nearness to a gravity field, and so too would its radius as it increased in mass it would decrease in radius due to pressure.

OK. This is new to me. Do you have a source?

[sjw40364]

The mass of a proton would change simply because its nearness to a gravity field, and so too would its radius as it increased in mass it would decrease in radius due to pressure.

OK. This is new to me. Do you have a source?

Not per-se no, but do you believe if the Earth was placed on the surface of the Sun it would remain the same size and mass it is now (hypothetically if it could survive)? Or would its weight increase and its size compact due to a larger gravitational/EM force upon it? I guess the real question is, is a proton solid or mostly empty space or is it composed of smaller particles? Will a balloon expand as it goes away from the surface of the earth or remain the same size? I already know the answer, am asking these things to show their relationship. Perhaps mass was the wrong word and weight should have been used. The mass of an object will always remain the same unless added to or taken away.

[Osmosis]

Here's one for the quantum mechanics: If the weight of a proton depends on where it is, one of the measures might be precession, in a steady magnetic field. Measure the field by another means, to subtract the field-affected precession and the remainder might be the effect of gravity.

Osmosis

[peter09]

Do not confuse mass with weight, they are different.

mass is a property that a chunk of material has, no matter where it is, it is this property that is acted on by gravity. When gravity acts on a mass it experiences a force that we call weight.

So on the moon the mass of an object is no different to its mass on the earth. However its weight changes due to the difference in gravitation on the surface of the moon to that on earth.

[sjw40364]

Do not confuse mass with weight, they are different.

mass is a property that a chunk of material has, no matter where it is, it is this property that is acted on by gravity. When gravity acts on a mass it experiences a force that we call weight.

So on the moon the mass of an object is no different to its mass on the earth. However its weight changes due to the difference in gravitation on the surface of the moon to that on earth.

Didn't, that's why I added that i had used the wrong word, had meant weight but typed mass, which is why I also explained that mass will always remain the same.

[Sparky]

miles looks at weight and mass:

http://milesmathis.com/third7.html

[sjw40364]

I must disagree with Miles. in a zero-G environment the lead cube would still weigh more than the cardboard cube, unless mass suddenly does not generate its own gravity anymore. Even assuming no outside gravitational source the lead and cardboard cubes still are made up of mass and still retain their own gravitational forces. Also if all the molecules inside the lead cube expand at the same rate the cube MUST get larger faster, unless of course you first state that the cardboard box is filled with air molecules and not a vacuum. Since we can imagine them in a purely gravitationally free environment we can imagine this as well. As the atoms inside the lead cube expand they can not possibly fill the same space so each outer atom must be pushed outwards at the same rate the inwards ones expand, and at the same time the outer ones must expand also, further increasing the distance. Since we know that each atom has its own space around it, this space to keep the distance proportional, must also grow. That is the orbital distance of the electron must remain the same proportionally as both sizes increase.

[Sparky]

If mass generates it's own gravity, how come tools float away from the ISS when the astronaut let them loose? Even the astronaut had more mass than the tools... things do not gravitate to the ISS or other large objects in space. only when on collision course in their orbits do they make contact.

expansion theory: are you saying that denser matter will expand more than less dense matter? the theory also implies that space is matter, it has to expand....

and how will that affect far distant galaxies? wouldn't we be looking at them when they were much smaller? unless expansion warps photons that make up the image of much younger galaxies, as we see them now.

"expansion", which miles seems to make work as the force of gravity, bothers me...

weight is relative to where the weighed object is to a gravity body.

mass at a Lagrange point has no weight. mass in orbit has no weight. put those masses on the moon or any other planet and they will weigh differently on each. it is relative.

[sjw40364]

If mass generates it's own gravity, how come tools float away from the ISS when the astronaut let them loose? Even the astronaut had more mass than the tools... things do not gravitate to the ISS or other large objects in space. only when on collision course in their orbits do they make contact.

expansion theory: are you saying that denser matter will expand more than less dense matter? the theory also implies that space is matter, it has to expand....

and how will that affect far distant galaxies? wouldn't we be looking at them when they were much smaller? unless expansion warps photons that make up the image of much younger galaxies, as we see them now.

"expansion", which miles seems to make work as the force of gravity, bothers me...

weight is relative to where the weighed object is to a gravity body.

mass at a Lagrange point has no weight. mass in orbit has no weight. put those masses on the moon or any other planet and they will weigh differently on each. it is relative.

I didn't say the attraction would be the same as that of the earth (which is only one G, miniscule if you think about it, after all, can you not jump of its surface?), but every mass has its own gravitational/EM field. The smaller the mass the less this field is. The tool floats away because it was given inertia as it left the hand and the gravitational pull of a man or the tool is very, very small and unable to overcome this inertia. But I can assure you that if you place two objects (stationary) close by one another in a completely gravity free environment they will slowly drift together.

No, I am saying since there are more atoms inside the lead cube as they expand they take up more space and force the outer atoms further from their original location. Lets say one atom is in the exact center, if it expands all the other atoms must move outwards, as the next layer expands, not only must they move outward, but those outside of that layer must move outwards as well, etc, etc. exponentially. If Miles can imagine a perfectly gravity free environment I can imagine a perfect vacuum. What's good for the goose as they say.

Not true, mass at the Lagrange point does have weight, just the weight its own mass causes in its own gravitational field. Miniscule yes, but it is there. The problem is measuring the weight, since a scale would only have its own gravitational pull to measure by.

[phyllotaxis]

Is it never considered that "gravity" is the collective downward pressure of everything displaced above it?
(imagine a basketball in deep water for the mental analogy, where the Earth is the ball and water is atmosphere, space/plasma, pushing towards the surface of the object displacing the space)
Perhaps the EM fields present through the sum of the atomic activity in the mass somehow prevent the density of aether/space/whatever from equalizing and dissipating outward, as might be expected in the "open container" of space.

I really don't know, and I'm really asking the questions.

Why is it assumed that "gravity" is an intrinsic manifestation of matter drawing things to it in some mysterious way from the inside out, when measurable attractive forces can better be explained by known EM attributes without need for a different, separate force? If gravity as we understand it is just displaced space/aether/whatever contained/compressed somehow in EM fields "pushing back" against the objects within it, we could possibly explain how larger masses have more gravity: they're simply displacing more space, which pushes back harder- from above.
We could then refocus on EM characteristics of matter to more purely define motions/attractions etc... right?
No more gravity monkey wrench, so-to-speak.

This is an open and honest set of questions from one that doesn't get some of the assumptions made by most of the theorists. I just can't take much for given, when we don't know so much.
Please forgive me my ignorance, I seek only to understand.

[Sparky]

Is it never considered that "gravity" is the collective downward pressure of everything displaced above it?

yes, that is a theory... also, any particles moving downward would be part of that, and that is a theory. see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5051

Perhaps the EM fields present through the sum of the atomic activity in the mass somehow prevent the density of aether/space/whatever from equalizing and dissipating outward, as might be expected in the "open container" of space.

what effect you describe is gravity. that is debated....have you looked at miles mathis gravity papers? another is a site posted on previous suggested thread. and yes, gravity effect must be the sum of at least two, if not more things.

Why is it assumed that "gravity" is an intrinsic manifestation of matter drawing things to it in some mysterious way from the inside out, when measurable attractive forces can better be explained by known EM attributes without need for a different, separate force? If gravity as we understand it is just displaced space/aether/whatever contained/compressed somehow in EM fields "pushing back" against the objects within it, we could possibly explain how larger masses have more gravity: they're simply displacing more space, which pushes back harder- from above.
We could then refocus on EM characteristics of matter to more purely define motions/attractions etc... right?
No more gravity monkey wrench, so-to-speak.

the inside out theory seems to work...outward acceleration (expansion) of a mass seems to satisfy the math...that theory makes my queasy ....

the pushing back from space, if i understand what you are saying,
would be the wave or particle theories that bombard a mass...
some people claim that their theory is more correct. the theory must satisfy several observed effects...
and some of these bombardment theories are hundreds of years old...

Newton, without modern equipment, got very close to a unified field theory, just by observation...but he never offered a hypothesis, that i know of. we are still at the same relative point in understanding gravity...

It may be too complicated for me to understand...

[sjw40364]

Is it never considered that "gravity" is the collective downward pressure of everything displaced above it?
(imagine a basketball in deep water for the mental analogy, where the Earth is the ball and water is atmosphere, space/plasma, pushing towards the surface of the object displacing the space)
Perhaps the EM fields present through the sum of the atomic activity in the mass somehow prevent the density of aether/space/whatever from equalizing and dissipating outward, as might be expected in the "open container" of space.

I really don't know, and I'm really asking the questions.

Why is it assumed that "gravity" is an intrinsic manifestation of matter drawing things to it in some mysterious way from the inside out, when measurable attractive forces can better be explained by known EM attributes without need for a different, separate force? If gravity as we understand it is just displaced space/aether/whatever contained/compressed somehow in EM fields "pushing back" against the objects within it, we could possibly explain how larger masses have more gravity: they're simply displacing more space, which pushes back harder- from above.
We could then refocus on EM characteristics of matter to more purely define motions/attractions etc... right?
No more gravity monkey wrench, so-to-speak.

This is an open and honest set of questions from one that doesn't get some of the assumptions made by most of the theorists. I just can't take much for given, when we don't know so much.
Please forgive me my ignorance, I seek only to understand.

I believe you are correct in thinking of gravity as nothing more than a manifestation of the E/M force. Just as atoms are held together by the E/M force, so is everything made up of these atoms. IMO planets do not orbit the Sun because of gravity, they orbit because of the interaction of the Electrical and Magnetic forces. Why do no planets orbit in the opposite direction? If only gravity was involved there would be no reason why this could not be so. Since orbits are due to the magnetic force they all orbit the same direction because of the right hand rule. Most will explain this is due because during formation the solar system was spinning in that direction. Yet we then surmise that some of the planets were captured. Coincidence they just happened to be captured in the same direction the others orbited? Even so called comets supposedly pulled in from the Oort Cloud always orbit the same direction as well. Since magnetism always causes things to circle perpendicular to the electric force I find this not surprising at all. All moons orbit their planets according to the right hand rule as well.