Gravity on the Ships from Sci-Fi Movies/Shows

[Aer'ki]

Despite what some will say, we really don't have a clue how gravity works outside it being reasonable (and supported by observation) that mass attracts mass and this attraction is a squared function of distance (like a great many other things in nature.

To add to that, it also appears from observation that magnetic force is greater than gravitational force.

One step theory from that could explain that magnetic force is the reason why some black holes have streams of radiation jetting out from them...because the internal magnetic forces MAY BE overpowering the gravitational.

[Krazeh]

You misunderstand what I mean by 'theoretical science.'

I have no problem with one step theories...theories taking one leap from ESTABLISHED FACTS OR DATA.

But when 'scientists' take a one step theory and treat it as if it were fact, and then make another leap from that first leap, and another considers that theory fact, and makes another leap, before long all you have is scifi and not science.

A lot of scientists quote the theory of relativity as their PROOF for why their theories are correct. Theory isn't proof, it's an untested idea.

Which scientists? Can you provide details of some peer reviewed papers where they have quoted the theory of relativity as proof their theory is correct?

Should also mention at this stage that your understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms is incorrect. A hypothesis is an untested idea, an hypothesis then only becomes a theory when it has been experimentally tested and it's predictions have been found to match up with experimental results. And a scientific theory is completely different to a scientific law, theories do not become laws after a certain point.

Einstein devotees don't do that. They treat his theories as if they were law and totally undisputable. They have gone so far to fake experiments to 'prove' it real, though those experiments are little more than a facade, but most people's eyes glass over with the technobable and they don't call them on it.

Again I take it you have proof of this? Which scientists are publishing peer reviewed papers that are treating his theories as undisputable laws? And what experiments have been faked? (I don't mean experiments you are claiming as faked with no actual basis behind that claim, I want details of experiments which have been proven to have been faked by other peer reviewed, verifiable experimentation)

So what you have is a fictious little world that some people get paid to play around in. This HURTS the forward movement of science and technology, because these people activity discourage research and thought contrary to theirs(dogma) and indoctrinate the students they teach with these 'beliefs' rather than insist on them the basic principle of questioning everything.

And you're proof that scientific research and thought is being discouraged or repressed by the use of einstein theories are? Can you even name any fields of research that have been allegedly discouraged by your so called "Einsten devotees"?

And Quadhelix, I've given you many answers in the T.O.R. thread that you completely ignored. I'm not playing these games with you anymore...you're like a relative of mine who never shuts up, never gives in, and distorts everything in an attempt to come out on top. He has no loyalty to the truth, and it's becoming more apparent by the post that neither do you.

The only answers you gave were inconclusive and continually vague, you evaded a lot of questions where explanations had been given by K^2 and Quadhelix and instead only responded to questions where you could respond by claiming that einstein was wrong because you said so. At no point did you make any attempt to respond to questions by demonstrating how the science behind the claims were wrong beyond stating that you had feelings about it, or that you knew it wasn't possible for those claims to be true.

A scientist's first priority must ALWAYS be to the TRUTH, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

Yes, you're right and i'm yet to see any evidence that scientists studying and supporting Einstein's theories don't have that as their first priority. Aside from anything else the whole concept of peer review is designed to prevent scientists making claims that are untrue and passing off unverifiable results.

To add to that, it also appears from observation that magnetic force is greater than gravitational force.

One step theory from that could explain that magnetic force is the reason why some black holes have streams of radiation jetting out from them...because the internal magnetic forces MAY BE overpowering the gravitational.

I suppose that no scientist has considered this because their work has been suppressed by Einstein devotees? Or perhaps it's more simple that it has been considered and when looked at in detail it was found that it didn't match observations as well as predictions made by the theories of relativity?

[Quadhelix]

They have gone so far to fake experiments to 'prove' it real, though those experiments are little more than a facade, but most people's eyes glass over with the technobable and they don't call them on it.

So in other words, your response is that anything that could possibly show you wrong is fake?

And Quadhelix, I've given you many answers in the T.O.R. thread that you completely ignored.

Please link to them then, because I must have missed them. When I asked you why Newton's Laws are more inviolable than Aristotle's ideas or Ptolemy's, you ignored me and then stopped responding.

One step theory from that could explain that magnetic force is the reason why some black holes have streams of radiation jetting out from them...because the internal magnetic forces MAY BE overpowering the gravitational.

How can you believe in black holes if you don't believe General Relativity?

[K^2]

It's all semantics. At some point the academics were faced with a quandry in that energy flows from high to low potential. In the case of a battery energy (electron flow) goes from negative to positive and they got their panties in a wad. It's obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that the "negative" and "positives" are polarity and the electrons are driven by a differential potential but in order to make it all seem right, everything was based on positive charge flow. As hard as this will be for you to believe there are many college professors (engineering and physics) that won't even speak of electron flow as they feel it is a distraction.

Do you understand what a quasi particle is? Do you understand the necessity of ambiguity of charge carrier's sign in the theory? No? I didn't think so.

And from your other posts I see that you still don't understand why centrifugal force and gravity are both fictitious. Never even bothered to do any additional fact checking. Very sad.

[tinerin]

But when 'scientists' take a one step theory and treat it as if it were fact, and then make another leap from that first leap, and another considers that theory fact, and makes another leap, before long all you have is scifi and not science.

Well it's not like scientists are just blindly making these leaps. These theories have to spend years passing through numerous experiments by scientists around the world before they are even called a theory.

A lot of scientists quote the theory of relativity as their PROOF for why their theories are correct. Theory isn't proof, it's an untested idea.

Feel free to list some peer-reviewed publications that do so...

And yes, some good can come from multiple step theories, but when doing so you must recognize that the farther you get from the base facts, the more unlikely your results are going to be.

This doesn't exactly make sense because the base facts is basically the universe and the point of these theories is to come up with a single theory that explains everything and since its pretty unlikely that the first theory you come up with will explain everything, it makes sense to have to later refine the theory. Whether you want to believe in Einstein's theories is your choice but it is a fact that no single physics theory exists today that can explain everything that has been observed in the universe, and finding that theory is really one of the ultimate goals of theoretical physics.

I am a computer scientist and one of the things that I do is reverse engineering cryptographic protocols embedded in a computer program to break the program's security (and yes, that's really cool). One of my projects involving duplicating the serial number generator from a program's binary. Using a small sample of valid serial numbers, I created my program but when I was testing it, I realized that even though it worked for my initial sample, it would sometimes fail in other cases. That doesn't mean that my initial program was totally incorrect, just incomplete. Going through the binary again, I found that there was a segment of code that my initial set bypassed so I originally thought it was junk code but when I modified my program to include that segment, it worked like a charm.

Einstein devotees don't do that. They treat his theories as if they were law and totally undisputable. They have gone so far to fake experiments to 'prove' it real, though those experiments are little more than a facade, but most people's eyes glass over with the technobable and they don't call them on it.

Provide some of these fake experiments. Believe it or not, Einstein didn't just magically come up with his theory and the entire planet just immediately accepted it as the word of God. There was alot of controversy in the scientific community when Einstein first published his theories and in the first few decades after that, there were even people who believed that Einstein had to be wrong because of racist reasons. Einstein's theories have been around for over a century and noone has been able to either definitely disprove them or come up with a theory that is more plausible and better explains everything we know about the universe.

So what you have is a fictious little world that some people get paid to play around in.

This fictitious world isn't really little. The US Department of Energy alone operates 17 different research facilities and there are probably hundreds of sophisticated physics research labs around the world. The fact that hundreds of thousands of physicists around the world have had over a century to disprove Einstein's theories and haven't done it yet doesn't mean that he was completely correct but it does mean that he is more likely correct than wrong.

This HURTS the forward movement of science and technology, because these people activity discourage research and thought contrary to theirs(dogma) and indoctrinate the students they teach with these 'beliefs' rather than insist on them the basic principle of questioning everything.

Feel free to provide some of these professors and universities that "indoctrinate students". Like I stated in another thread, a person who doesn't question what they're taught, ain't gonna be getting a Master's or Doctor's degree at a decent university. In fact, the top US universities actually have a sort of a PhD exchange, where if you get your PhD at one school, you go to another school for your post-doc research (for example, someone graduates from Stanford and then does post-doc at CalTech), for the very reason that a person would be much less likely to question a professor that they've known for up to ten years than a professor they just met.

[morrismike]

Do you understand what a quasi particle is? Do you understand the necessity of ambiguity of charge carrier's sign in the theory? No? I didn't think so.

And from your other posts I see that you still don't understand why centrifugal force and gravity are both fictitious. Never even bothered to do any additional fact checking. Very sad.

I could care less. I can design a pump or other machine to use centrifugal and/or gravitational force to perform a function. I have little interest in whether a person feels these are fictitious, imaginary or any other cute word.

[K^2]

And seeing how you have no idea what you are doing, I don't want to be anywhere near that pump.

[morrismike]

And seeing how you have no idea what you are doing, I don't want to be anywhere near that pump.

You would be much safer having an engineer that believes in and understands centrifugal force designing that pump than you would have a lab nerd without a firm grasp on the real world giving it a go. Centrifugal Force and Gravity are two of the mightiest arrows in an engineers quiver.

[K^2]

A good engineer who understands centrifugal force understands it as a special case of a force induced by accelerated frame of reference, because he studied classical mechanics. Not as a V²/R formula you learned in school. He therefore doesn't care if casing is static or if it undergoes acceleration of its own, causing stress on the rotor and changing output pressure, making him capable of designing a centrifugal pump for an application more advanced than irrigation.

You are not that engineer. If you were required to construct a centrifugal pump for a rocket engine, you'd be a liability on the project, because your lack of understanding of what fictitious forces are would prevent you from properly accounting for acceleration due to thrust and any change in trajectory as well vibration, resulting in uneven fuel flow at best and complete failure with consequent explosion of the rocket in the worst.

But sure, if you just want to pump water from the well, centrifugal force is all you need to know. And if that's all you aspire to design, then that's fine, but then don't get involved in discussions on artificial gravity, as that's clearly over your head.

[morrismike]

A good engineer who understands centrifugal force understands it as a special case of a force induced by accelerated frame of reference, because he studied classical mechanics. Not as a V²/R formula you learned in school. He therefore doesn't care if casing is static or if it undergoes acceleration of its own, causing stress on the rotor and changing output pressure, making him capable of designing a centrifugal pump for an application more advanced than irrigation.

You are not that engineer. If you were required to construct a centrifugal pump for a rocket engine, you'd be a liability on the project, because your lack of understanding of what fictitious forces are would prevent you from properly accounting for acceleration due to thrust and any change in trajectory as well vibration, resulting in uneven fuel flow at best and complete failure with consequent explosion of the rocket in the worst.

But sure, if you just want to pump water from the well, centrifugal force is all you need to know. And if that's all you aspire to design, then that's fine, but then don't get involved in discussions on artificial gravity, as that's clearly over your head.

Keep living the dream in your make believe world where things like artifiicial gravity is a reality.

[Quadhelix]

Keep living the dream in your make believe world where things like artifiicial gravity is a reality.

Bravo! Way to disprove his argument! I am overawed by your in-depth analysis of K^2's position and by your point-by-point refutation of his issues. [/sarcasm]

In all seriousness though, your "argument" is ad hominem straw-man nonsense. I say "straw-man," because K^2 didn't say that artificial gravity existed, he said that any discussion of it would be over your head. Regardless of how rude that was, the point remains that he never actually asserted that artificial gravity existed.

Of course, there is the carousel-style artificial gravity, so it is quite obvious that there is at least one type of artificial gravity in the real world.

[K^2]

Of course, there is the carousel-style artificial gravity, so it is quite obvious that there is at least one type of artificial gravity in the real world.

Which, by the way, is locally indistinguishable from real gravity. (Again, I mean gravity caused by massive bodies here.) Though, Coriolis Effect is a bit difficult to recreate, because it requires a rotating disk of colossal mass to provide frame dragging. Not to mention complaints from Aer'ki that there is no such thing as frame dragging. But I'm getting off topic here.

I have a concrete classical example, though, that shows why it's important to properly understand nature of centrifugal force when solving mechanics problems.

Imagine the following situation. Inside a small rotating space station. Lets say 10m diameter with 1g at floor level. Id est, strong "gravity" gradient and Coriolis Effect. From center of the station is suspended by a long stretchy spring with spring coefficient k a mass m. Assume neutral position to be almost at the center. Somebody holds on to the mass, stretching the spring, and then releases it. Describe motion of the mass, accounting for Coriolis Effect, etc.

This problem can be solved the extremely easy way and extremely complex way. Have a shot at it.

[Aer'ki]

Well it's not like scientists are just blindly making these leaps. These theories have to spend years passing through numerous experiments by scientists around the world before they are even called a theory.



Feel free to list some peer-reviewed publications that do so...



This doesn't exactly make sense because the base facts is basically the universe and the point of these theories is to come up with a single theory that explains everything and since its pretty unlikely that the first theory you come up with will explain everything, it makes sense to have to later refine the theory. Whether you want to believe in Einstein's theories is your choice but it is a fact that no single physics theory exists today that can explain everything that has been observed in the universe, and finding that theory is really one of the ultimate goals of theoretical physics.

I am a computer scientist and one of the things that I do is reverse engineering cryptographic protocols embedded in a computer program to break the program's security (and yes, that's really cool). One of my projects involving duplicating the serial number generator from a program's binary. Using a small sample of valid serial numbers, I created my program but when I was testing it, I realized that even though it worked for my initial sample, it would sometimes fail in other cases. That doesn't mean that my initial program was totally incorrect, just incomplete. Going through the binary again, I found that there was a segment of code that my initial set bypassed so I originally thought it was junk code but when I modified my program to include that segment, it worked like a charm.



Provide some of these fake experiments. Believe it or not, Einstein didn't just magically come up with his theory and the entire planet just immediately accepted it as the word of God. There was alot of controversy in the scientific community when Einstein first published his theories and in the first few decades after that, there were even people who believed that Einstein had to be wrong because of racist reasons. Einstein's theories have been around for over a century and noone has been able to either definitely disprove them or come up with a theory that is more plausible and better explains everything we know about the universe.



This fictitious world isn't really little. The US Department of Energy alone operates 17 different research facilities and there are probably hundreds of sophisticated physics research labs around the world. The fact that hundreds of thousands of physicists around the world have had over a century to disprove Einstein's theories and haven't done it yet doesn't mean that he was completely correct but it does mean that he is more likely correct than wrong.



Feel free to provide some of these professors and universities that "indoctrinate students". Like I stated in another thread, a person who doesn't question what they're taught, ain't gonna be getting a Master's or Doctor's degree at a decent university. In fact, the top US universities actually have a sort of a PhD exchange, where if you get your PhD at one school, you go to another school for your post-doc research (for example, someone graduates from Stanford and then does post-doc at CalTech), for the very reason that a person would be much less likely to question a professor that they've known for up to ten years than a professor they just met.

Ok, first thing. Peer reviewed journals...this is a buzz word floating around that gives the appearance of credibility, but it is anything but. A 'peer reviewed' anything is little more than a fraternity. If these people are wise and fair, it's a good thing, but if these people have a bias, they can use their status to keep all dissenting opinions out of their club. This sort of thing is currently being done in the Global Warming debate, and many politicians and key members are constantly throwing out the term 'peer reviewed' to prove their point...because they have that group of people in the bag. Anything opposing global warming gets dismissed immediately, making the 'peer reviewed' process a propaganda tool.

But if you want something to look at, look at the failed attempts to detect gravitational waves. I believe it's been a decade since the first detector went into operation and they've gotten nothing but ten years of static.

Now, if the theory of relativity was treated as a theory, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There are lots of theories that don't pan out, and they're part of the stepping stone process of experimentation and learning...but Einstein's theories have become scientific law to some people, and they defend them zealously. K'2 and Quadhelix here, for example. K'2 said he's a physicist working on particle research, but his posts are evasive and angry...if there were scientific answers to the points I an others have made, it would just be a simple process of explaining them logically...but that's not what he and others do. They attack the credibility of those posing the mere idea that Einstein could be wrong, they ignore data and simple logic, and fill up the air time with technobable until you get tired or frustrated enough and stop talking to them. They also have a penchant for declaring nothing is real, and any benchmark you try to use to argue against Einstein's theories suddenly becomes fictious or a point of view. They even got to the point of disagreeing that 1+1=2.

Now, I'm answering you because I hope you're not in the same boat with them(if you're actually designing code then you're in the practical realm).

As for the experiments...they're fake because they don't actually test the theory, despite claims to the contrary. True tests of the theory of relativity must take place in space and cannot be accomplished on the ground or in the air. Also, observational data(such as the bending of light near the sun) is questionable because of extraneous factors. In this case, the atmosphere around the sun. We know it bends light on Earth, why wouldn't it do the same on the Sun? This would affect the angle they're measuring and make the entire test invalid.

Also, they point to Mercury's orbit as proof of the theory of relativity...until you see the real numbers and notice that the discrepancy between projected orbit and observed orbit is a tiny percentage difference...easily accounted for by slight variations in planetary mass...which, by the way, may have been calculated with the theory of relativity. We don't have for sure mass numbers of anything, including Earth. When you take that into account, a small variation in Mercury's orbit is understandable and doesn't need some convoluted theory to account for it...and it definitely proves nothing.

As for Universities...they allow for thought and confrontation unless you vere into something they consider taboo...which means they don't really let you question things unless those questions are acceptable to them. If you don't believe that, look to history and how new theories have been accepted...torture and death on multiple occasions. Take a look at the criticism of Global Warming...they don't even want a debate...they've said the debate is over and it's an established fact...just like the theory of relativity.

The US Department of Education doesn't have any space-based research facilities, which makes them incapable of testing the theory of relativity. Until we get a foothold into space, there won't be technology bringing into question Einstein's theories...hence they won't be disproven for a while, but in the mean time kids are being taught that we can't travel between stars because of a limit of light speed, they're being taught that time isn't a constant and that you can age less than your peers if you spend some time going faster, and they're being taught that basic logic doesn't apply, most pointedly that a relative measurement can have an absolute limit...which it can't. Might as well tell them to believe that gravity pushes rather than pulls.

As for the theories based off of Einstein's theories, just about anything in astronomy qualifies. Big bang theory and internal structure of black holes are the obvious two. They run numbers off of Einstein's theories to provide them a base, and they shouldn't do that. Also, both of these things are untestable...lending to more B.S.ing.

Technology research here on Earth is another matter entirely. I don't believe Einstein was a wacko, I think his theories make some MATHEMATICAL sense, and there is a lightspeed limit for accelerating a BALLISTIC particle(as far as we know) because you can't push something faster than the speed of your push, and magnetism seems to peak out at lightspeed. But a self propelled object is another matter altogether.

Yes, that's a lot of typing, but if you don't believe me, look at how some of these 'scientists' treat disagreement. Look how K'2 has responded to morrismike. He's completely disregarding his engineering knowledge because he doesn't agree with THEORY. I imagine morrismike has hands on experience compared to theoretical analysis, and yet that doesn't matter to K'2's ilk. You either agree with them or you are dirt.

That's not the way of objective science...it's the way of dogma.

[K^2]

They even got to the point of disagreeing that 1+1=2.

Even if we were to take for granted that symbols '1', '+', and '=' are used to denote multiplicative unit, binary operation in group of addition, and equivalence relation respectively in some ring, as it is typically done, you failed to specify which ring you are talking about. Z2 is a ring where symbols '1', '+', and '=' are used in exactly the same way, except 1+1=0.

But again, since you've never had any mathematics or science past school level, it's not surprising that you are confused. I'm just glad we didn't have to explain to you that Santa isn't real.

[morrismike]

Which, by the way, is locally indistinguishable from real gravity. (Again, I mean gravity caused by massive bodies here.) Though, Coriolis Effect is a bit difficult to recreate, because it requires a rotating disk of colossal mass to provide frame dragging. Not to mention complaints from Aer'ki that there is no such thing as frame dragging. But I'm getting off topic here.

I have a concrete classical example, though, that shows why it's important to properly understand nature of centrifugal force when solving mechanics problems.

Imagine the following situation. Inside a small rotating space station. Lets say 10m diameter with 1g at floor level. Id est, strong "gravity" gradient and Coriolis Effect. From center of the station is suspended by a long stretchy spring with spring coefficient k a mass m. Assume neutral position to be almost at the center. Somebody holds on to the mass, stretching the spring, and then releases it. Describe motion of the mass, accounting for Coriolis Effect, etc.

This problem can be solved the extremely easy way and extremely complex way. Have a shot at it.

The ball will move toward the axle and wind up on it because it will have to rotate faster (angularly) than the axle to conserve angular momentum. The elastic tether will likely break when the ball is wound up to the axle. The ball will seemingly bounce in the direction of rotation after it escapes the tether. If not for aerodynamic drag and less than perfect elasticity with regards to the bounces and ricochets, it would eventually come to rest on the outside of the cylinder - in reality these drag and lost energy of richochets will keep this from happening. This is why an ice skater spinning will accelerated when her arms are drawn closer to the body. The station is far too small to produce a noticeable coriolis effect. Our own planet is barely large enough to cause toilet whirlpools to be affected by there position relative to the equator. The ships velocity (assuming it is constant) shouldn't matter.