Centre of Gravity

[Ernest Wilson]

Why does a perfectly balanced long bar always come to rest in a vertical position if it is not initially in a horizontal position?

[KenGee]

Who says it does, as has been said to you before please cite a reference.

[Bassnut]

Because lower half is closer to earth and hence experiences a slightly larger gravity force ?

[GeoffW1]

Hi,

That is certainly true in a uniform gravity field, and if you assume that gravity is an attractive force between masses.

Here is an interesting and relevant discourse on it, but a warning: it will make your head hurt :rofl:

http://blazelabs.com/e-exp21.asp

Cheers

[Ernest Wilson]

KenGee,
The reference is supplied by GeoffW1. It is Electro Magnetic Radiation Push (EMRP) that causes gravity rather than Newton's pull gravity between two bodies. It varies and has a few interesting aspects for astronomers according to the author and even makes spacetime understandable. The speed of light varies as it bends in traversing a gravitational field, so perhaps there is an understandable explanation, so long as you ignore the maths as I have to.
Thank You!! GeoffW1:thanx:
Ernie.

[KenGee]

No what he did was give a link to a bunch of nuts. Xelasnave is a fan of push gravity however no working scienctist would give you the time of day. the first paragraph is full of errors that I couldn't get throught it.

My advice to you is to stop believing everything you read on the internet. Read some main stream science and stop trying to over turn a hundred years of modern science with ignorant leaps of of misunderstanding. Maybe astrology is more your thing?

[KenGee]

On lookers please learn a leason here if you are interested in learning more about science then get yourself some good main stream science books. Don't believe anything you read on the internet unless it comes from a peer reviewed well know source.

Having had a quick look as the site above it's clear that Ernest has been reading this site a lot. The author is a crack pot who thinks photons don't exist!

[Ernest Wilson]

Another reference:
"The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity" Reginald T. Cahill, School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University. (Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au)
arXiv:physics/0407133 July 26, 2004
To be published in Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology
Ernie.

[GeoffW1]

Oh dear :( It might soon be time for the Mods to step in, unless we can all be less personal ? :rolleyes:

Cheers

[CraigS]

.. Highly speculative theoretical extension to QFT which proposes high energy virtual particles supposedly capable of curving spacetime.

Science fiction almost …

So far Ernest your hit-rate for utter fantasy or pseudoscience is 100%.

These posts are becoming tiresome and misleading.

[Ernest Wilson]

Craig S
Do you rubbish Cahill because you do not regard his paper as mainstream physics, or because you have evidence to refute his work. I hope it is the latter and that you will share it with us.
Ernie.

[CraigS]

Ernie;

I do not, in any way, rubbish his work. Cahill has published many papers which attempt to pave the way for furthering theoretical and often highly speculative concepts. There is much public discussion amongst theoreticians at this formative end of the scientific process (as one would expect).

I must admit, I am having difficulty in understanding how you see this paper having anything in common with the originally posted Xavier Borg pseudoscientific reference. In the absence of some explanatory words from you on the connection (if any), I am left perplexed about what kind of discussion you are seeking. A conversation which attempts to mix Borg and Cahill content requires careful framing.

The topic requires a thorough understanding of Quantum Field Theory, and is dependent on the existence of an agreed theory of Quantum Gravity.

If you are seeking such a discussion, then I would suggest this is a topic for another thread. Some contextual words from yourself to frame such a discussion, would be needed in order for others to assist you in meeting your objectives (whatever those may be) and to avoid the perils of slipping into arguments over different interpretations of speculation.

Cheers

[KenGee]

Maybe I find the casual disregrade or dismissal of many hard working scienctist simple becuase it doesn't fit into someone world vew or worst just to be provocertive. Without any actual interest in understanding the basics of the field that is being rubished is very offensive to me.

[KenGee]

If Erine actually wants to talk about the topic he started then let him. I must say though that any of us that has a well balanced telescopes. Will be able to tell him that our aim is to be able to point the telescope in any direction and for it to not move.

[avandonk]

My astro rig was oscillating one night albeit slowly. The locks were disengaged for balancing. I was watching this on my screen inside I use to make sure everything is OK in the observatory while waiting for twilight to finish.
I went in to investigate and found a very fat huntsman spider wandering around on the rig looking for insects to eat.

Occam's razor may be needed here.

Bert

[CraigS]

As with most ‘revolutionary’ theories developed from a desperate need to disprove relativity, according to one critic with at least, a consistent commentary on Cahill’s paper, (T.D. Martin) (http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-030810.pdf), Cahill’s theory fails on the fundamental checks of internal self-consistency, and the empirical checks of independent verifiability:

Internal self-consistency:
i) Cahill’s equations for gravitational acceleration, (which supposedly arise from inflowing ‘quantum foam’), result in an enormous attractive gravitational force on the inflowing side of the Earth and a similarly, huge repulsive force on the opposite side;
ii) In the maths he has used, he has substituted the flow metric (a generalized ”Painlev́e-Gullstrand” metric) into Einstein’s field equations. As a direct result of this, absurd predictions for the interior states of matter in all ordinary planets, results.
Independent verifiability:
iii) The sum of the gravitational forces caused by the different quantum foam flows, result in a cancellation of forces where the various flows from separate sources come together (eg: within Earth’s vicinity). And yet Cahill claims that he has discovered a ‘net’ flow velocity in the Michelson-Morley (MMX) data amounting to 400 km/s. So which is it ? It seems the MMX data actually conflicts with his theoretical predictions.

Until adequately explained by Cahill, (for me), the above is sufficient cause to classify Reginald T. Cahill and his theory, under the 'flawed' science heading.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Hi Ken;

In general and overall, I agree with your stand whole-heartedly.

In a past thread, amongst Ernie’s very few interactively motivated spoken words, he has himself stated:


The issue here is the flawed assumption that ‘physicists’ are all equal in their thoroughness and/or expertise. If they are not, then upon exposing the flawed logic, we usually find there is no fundamental discontinuity in the underlying science and hence, no controversies.

I must admit, I also like to dabble in apparent scientific controversies, as I find it to be a ‘zone’ which can accelerate acquisition of knowledge in a particular area of science. I do this however, to achieve this goal only.

But how does one separate the scientists from the pseudoscientists ?

Ernie has already stated:



Some recognition of the contributions by others who do possess such knowledge, is standard etiquette in scientific circles and never goes astray. Contributing something of value back to real science ... no matter how small .. even if it is only recognition of its correctness on some point, is always a good practice too, eh ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

The original paper in question (this time), by Cahill, is here. (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407133)

Cheers

[Ernest Wilson]

Thanks to ALL contributors. I have a bit of work to do, but I will post a new thread on this later. Bye for now.
Ernie.

[CraigS]

Good onya, Ernie !
:thumbsup:

Looking forward to your comments .. This guy, Cahill is definitely a challenge and the conceptual basis of his theories are definitely a huge stretch for amateur scientists !

He's published about 61 papers I can find so far, (eg: on the arXiv server), and he has some interesting ideas. I'm pretty sure his theories lack consistency .. but, then again, all theories have their weaknesses. He doesn't seem to have much support from his peers, although I've found an Italian scientist, (M. Consoli), who has taken up a few of the challenges left behind by Cahill.

More later, perhaps.

:)
Cheers & Rgds

[sjastro]

Had a quick read of the paper.

The paper is "relatively" old and was waiting on predictions of the Gravity B probe which incidentally are in agreement with GR. So I assume the predictions made by "Process Physics" are incorrect.

The idea of associating space as a fluid (or as a quantum foam alias aether) leads to strange ideas regarding gravity. For example is this space "conserved" like mass or energy?
If so it must conform to a continuity equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_equation) where all the fluid sources in the Universe are cancelled out by fluid sinks. How does gravity behave in the vicinity of a sink (inflow) and a source (outflow)? Inituitively it suggests that gravity can act as either as a attractive force or a repulsive force.:shrug:

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Interestingly, the final results of GP-B were only announced a couple of months ago (4 May 2011), after a launch date of April 2004.

The announcement is here (http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html).

(GR vindicated).

Interesting … it took a while, but the results are there for all to see.
Perhaps Mr Cahill will get a bit quieter from now on ?

From the Faq's section: (http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html#mytheory)


.. haven't seen Cahill publishing in the American Physical Society journal .. I think his papers have been reviewed in other publications though ..

Cheers

[CraigS]

As I mentioned before, it seems that M. Consoli has taken up the challenge of trying to measure quantum noise, which might be used as an indiator for the basic properties of the quantum vacuum state:

His recent paper (June 2011) is here. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1277)
The abstract is:



… the search for the 'ether' goes on, eh ?
Mind you, the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum state is what they are talking about here. Seems to me that Cahill (maybe Consoli) are transferring the term 'aether' over to the quantum vacuum properties and attempting to breathe new life into to the old 'aether'.

Talk about obfuscation ! (Did I just use that term ?? :eyepop: )


Cheers

[renormalised]

It's GRrrrrrrr, vidicated!!!!!!!:):P

And, nope.....he'll get louder, if anything. Now he and others will start looking for faults in the probe's design, the experimental methodology, the data etc etc. Or he and others will "massage" the data to agree with their ideas.

[CraigS]

But Carl …. this Cahill guy is a respected Academic Professor of Physics at Flinders University … here he is, right here …. (http://nitp.org.au/people/cahill)
Don't these types head up those courses in Astrophysics you guys are always doing ?
:P :)
Cheers

PS: What's more, he's a 'Godel ler' .. ie: a devotee of one of my heros .. Kurt Godel ! A better run down of his "Process Physics" is here. (http://beliefinstitute.com/bio/prof-reg-cahill) Wiki lists 'Process Physics' as one definition of pseudoscience, interestingly. He's also been funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant !

[renormalised]

It would be a turn up if Consoli and Co's work is found to be the case. Especially once the detector sensitivity advances technologically to the point they can routinely probe at the level they need. What it would basically mean is that the vacuum, at a quantum level, behaves in a quasi liquid fashion. That doesn't mean that an "aether" exists, but that the QM properties of the vacuum at these levels is similar to the way a liquid behaves.

[renormalised]

Yes he is...but that doesn't mean he has to tow the established line. Not everyone in academia is a conservative, orthodox theorist or experimentalist. In some ways, it's good he's not a line tower, however it can end up leading those types up paths that are dead ends a little too often.

[sjastro]

Of course the experts at Thunderblogs have it all figured out.:lol:

[renormalised]

You mean, they've figured out where all their socks go after sticking them in a washing machine???!!!!:):P

They're all talk, but not one of them will submit a paper outlining their criticisms of the data, nor will they submit their own theories and experimental methodologies to test. Basically, because they're incapable of doing so. Not one of them is qualified in any field of science, either at all or sufficiently enough for them to be able to carry out any counterarguments and experiments.

[sjastro]

Although I disagree with Cahill, I respect the man for doing the "hard yards".
Compare this to those ignorant knuckleheads at Thunderblogs who spew such ill informed garbage.....

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Actually Steven, I am overwhelmed by the numbers of Aether/Ether devotees there are around the various physics forums, (not just TBolts).

Its interesting (& quite brutal) to see how mainstream debunkers decompose their arguments and leave them in a crumpled heap …

I've learned that the term 'ether' is used by many of them as a cure-all for all of mainstream's supposed Relativity malaises.

I might have lotsa hand-ups, but getting stuck on non-acceptance GR/SR ain't one of 'em (thank goodness).
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

You know, Craig, they want to be very careful. Sniffing ether is no good for them, especially if they do it too often and too much:):P:P

[sjastro]

They don't have to. It's an anti science site.
I'm astounded how they readily embrace any idea which opposes mainstream, yet appear blissfully unaware the same ideas may contradict EU.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Precisely. At least he has the knowledge to do the work and understand it, plus the front to stand up and say what he thinks. All credit to him. The idiots at Thunderfarts couldn't blow out a candle with their collective abilities or brain power, and not one of them has the ability or temerity to actually submit anything of their own to the contrary.

[renormalised]

True.

Well, that only goes to show you how ignorant they really are.

[CraigS]

Like grabbing Robitaille's CMBR ideas as a defence against WMAP's direct empirical support underpinning the Standard Cosmo Model.

All this whilst not seeing that Robitaille's ideas run counter to EU beliefs, eh ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Craig,

That's the example I had in mind.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Maybe they've been sniffing too much ether:):P

[CraigS]

You know, I've been trying to understand how all this anti-science/pseudoscience phenomena starts up.

One idea I've had is that when forum posters start up discussions about some theory, principle, hypothesis, the discussion may seem like its just words being used to convey some ideas about how the universe works, but there's a lot more going on behind the words than what appears in the words themselves. If the viewer doesn't possess the knowledge/background/distinctions/experience to understand what's really going on in the background, which ultimately leads to the appearance of words from a keyboard, they walk away with the conclusion that all the conversation was about was a story concocted between those in the conversation.

I know that there's a lot more referencing going on in my mind, once I see words written .. all of which either results in my agreeing or disagreeing with the output of the conversation. If the onlooker isn't doing this (or is only doing some of it), they get the impression that its all just opinion.

This idea underpins my contention here that Science is NOT some story told to me by the last person who told me a story.

We are actually doing science here in this forum in some of our conversations .. (well sometimes anyway).

Cheers

[renormalised]

Another reasons is this....they don't understand what's being discussed because they've never been smart enough to understand it and/or they couldn't get past 1st base at school in any of the courses they took. However, they believe they know better than those who do understand the science and have actually done the required learning and research. Because it's all just opinion anyway, isn't it. So, they do a little bit of reading, become armchair experts and then think they have a monopoly on what's really happening in the world. They fall for any crackpot idea that sounds good and appeals to their ignorance, then become faithful devotees to the cause. At the expense of logic, rationality and good science/scientific principles. In this case, what little imagination they do have becomes a liability.

[sjastro]

What I find particularly disconcerting about Thunderbolts is the open hostility to scientists and in particular mathematicians. Quite a few of these clowns have a genuine dislike for people based on their professions, not on any direct experiences.

Steven

[renormalised]

It's jealousy and ignorance all rolled into one neat sick package. They attack what they don't understand....half of them need help counting to ten, in any case.