JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[Shalamar]

I think what Jerome wants, is a device that he can switch on, point to the earth, which will then report the 'force' of gravity. Whatever 'force' may mean in Jeromes mind.

Here is an experiment Jerome. Take a standard mass of 1kg (I use kilograms as metric is the scientific standard). Place that weight on an accurate scale, and see what it says. It should read 1kg. If you have a really really accurate scale, you could conceivably wander the world, and measure the subtle differences in Earths Gravitational field.

Take that same mass of 1kg, and that exact same scale, and travel to the moon. That 1kg mass should now read roughly 0.166666 kg. The mass has remained the same. But the weight has changed. That is because the moons gravitational field is weaker than earths. This means that the gravitational FORCE that the moon exerts on the 1kg mass is 1/6 what the earth exerts on that same mass.

Of course, this all all rjather simplified, and I may have even made some mistakes in such. If so, I will happily own up to them. After all, I'm here to learn.

(Though I do believe I'm on Jeromes Ignore list)

 

[Belz...]

This is the biggest BS question presented on these forms.


Weak, weak, weak.


When one can not defend their position, or answer a question, they ask what do I have to do to convince you I am right.

Is there anything you understand about anything ?

So far, physics, english, discussion, civility and logic don't seem to be your strong suits...

 

[Belz...]

Now, what evidence would make you believe [GODDIDIT]?

There's plenty I can think of, actually.

 

[sol invictus]

Let me know when you have measured the force of gravity.

I guess in troll-land there are no bathroom scales?

 

[Evilgiraffe]

I guess in troll-land there are no bathroom scales?

I'm not surprised. Squatting under bridges eating little billy goats all day must play havoc with one's figure.

 

[Sunstealer]

The force of gravity is relative to the mass of the two objects one is examining. There is no universal number of this force as shown by Shalamar. I'm not exactly sure what Jerome is asking for. I'm not sure whether it's a genuine lack of understanding, a strange way of interpreting plain English or obtuseness. Is he confusing big G with little g? I'm fairly sure that he is a troll. I'd like to know what he means be force
because without the "Jerome definition" then I feel that we are wasting our time.

I'd like to know Jerome's level of (scientific) education, it might help with us understanding why repeated answers are met with such strangeness.

 

[robinson]

Take a standard mass of 1kg (I use kilograms as metric is the scientific standard). Place that weight on an accurate scale, and see what it says. It should read 1kg. If you have a really really accurate scale, you could conceivably wander the world, and measure the subtle differences in Earths Gravitational field.

That has already been done. The variations in gravity, which seem to be connected to the Earth's magnetic field, are a subject of much research.

As for the trip to the moon, what happens to the scale as you make the trip? Is there a point in the trip where the scale reads no gravity?

 

[robinson]

If you go with GR, there is no force of gravity. There is only warped spacetime and acceleration and stuff, but no force of gravity.

 

[Shalamar]

That has already been done. The variations in gravity, which seem to be connected to the Earth's magnetic field, are a subject of much research.

As for the trip to the moon, what happens to the scale as you make the trip? Is there a point in the trip where the scale reads no gravity?

Oh, I know. This was a suggestion to Jerome to do, since he wants to know if kanyone has measured the 'force' of gravity.

As for the trip to the moon.. I'd LOVE to find out. Anyone want to get together for a trip to the moon to study gravity?

 

[sol invictus]

If you go with GR, there is no force of gravity. There is only warped spacetime and acceleration and stuff, but no force of gravity.

I don't agree with you, but that debate is so far above the level of this thread it's just not worth having.

As for the trip to the moon.. I'd LOVE to find out. Anyone want to get together for a trip to the moon to study gravity?

As for this, that depends on what trip you take. The simplest one - blast off from earth, fly towards the moon, turn around, and thrust towards the moon to land - will be most of the time in free fall, during which period the scale will read zero. But you could also accelerate the whole way if you really wanted to, so that the scale would never read zero (for example your rocket could be rotating during the free fall period).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't agree with you, but that debate is so far above the level of this thread it's just not worth having.

 

[Reality Check]

Any evidence yet, jerome da troll?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Any evidence yet, jerome da troll?

Why am I required to evidence non-existence?

 

[Terry]

What's wrong with the torsion balance experiment that it fails to meet your definition of "a measurement of the force of gravity" ?

 

[Reality Check]

Why am I required to evidence non-existence?

You have to give evidence for your claim, jerome the troll

Do not change usernames in order to insult.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What's wrong with the torsion balance experiment that it fails to meet your definition of "a measurement of the force of gravity" ?

How, exactly, do we know that this is a measurement of the force of gravity due to mass?

 

[Reality Check]

How, exactly, do we know that this is a measurement of the force of gravity due to mass?

Because it is a measurement of the force of gravity between two masses.

 

[Terry]

How, exactly, do we know that this is a measurement of the force of gravity due to mass?

It meets the normal physics definition of force. Why do you think it doesn't? Why is this any different from the way we measure electrostatic or magnetic forces, such that you object to it?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It meets the normal physics definition of force. Why do you think it doesn't? Why is this any different from the way we measure electrostatic or magnetic forces, such that you object to it?

Yes, yes, but how do we know what force we are measuring?

How does the force of gravity derive it's power?

 

[wollery]

How, exactly, do we know that this is a measurement of the force of gravity due to mass?

Because gravity is the name we assign to the force that attracts two masses (in the absence of electricity or magnetism).

Want to call it something different? Feel free. We could call it schplunck if you want. Doesn't make any difference to the maths or the physics. Instead of the law of gravity we'd have the law of schplunck. Sure, it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but who cares, at least we wouldn't be arguing over the law of gravity anymore.

We could talk about how bodies tend to schplunckate together due to the schplunckational attraction and schplunckational fields. If things get serious we can discuss the schplunck of the situation. Relative densities of liquids will be measured in specific schplunck.

It's all the same, give it any name you want, but don't pretend that there isn't a force, because there is, and gravity is merely the name we give it.

To paraphrase the Bard;
Gravity by any other name would attract as much.