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 (Kenith Gee)]

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

[Bassnut (Fred)]

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

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

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

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

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
Ernie.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

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 (Kenith Gee)]

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 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

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?

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

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by 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.

.. 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]

Originally Posted by 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;

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 (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

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

Cheers

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 (Kenith Gee)]

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), 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson

You are right; I have been selective because I do not see agreement amongst the physicists.

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:

Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson

I don't have the expertise to take this any further, ... I assure you I have learned quite a bit from our discussions.

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.

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 !


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