The Sexual Implications of "The Apple Didn't Fall".

A Discussion of the the Science Behind

The Apple didn't fall

To; TSC who wants to remain anonymous and not be bothered by answers to his claims

Problem #1 - Experiment shows that objects are attracted to the Earth equally, regardless of their electric charge.

[[[[[This is not true. Experiment shows that if there is any difference in how objects with varying electric charges are attracted to the Earth it is too small to be measured. Since the variation of electric charge we can produce is on the order of 10 to the minus 36^th of the charge at the center of the earth, this is to be expected. It also means that such experiments of no evidence in support of or against the hypothesis.]]]]

If the attraction were the result of electromagnetic attraction,

[[[[[[There is no such force as electromagnetic attraction of repulsion. The known forces are Electric, magnetic and gravity.]]]]]

objects with one charge would be attracted, while those with the opposite charge would be repelled.

[[[[[This statement is also untrue. The only instance where like charges are repelled is when they are equal.

An iron atom with a + 20 charge (missing 20 electrons) will try to steal an electron from any atom with a less positive charge and the two will be attracted. They can actually be said to having opposing charges because a +19 iron atom will be negatively charged with respect to the +20 atom. There is only one possible object that can exist on the surface that is positive with respect to the center of the earth and that is an alpha particle (a hydrogen without an electron. And they are repelled by gravity.]]]]

Problem #2 - Gauss' Law.  This law, verified by experiment, tells us that if the observable net charge of a set of objects is zero, the electromagnetic attraction of them will also be zero.

[[[[[Gauss's law is irrelevant because there is no such thing as an object with a zero net charge with respect to the center of the Earth. Gauss's law, properly phrased tells us that a set of objects with equal charge will be be attracted or repelled. Again, there is no electromagnetic attraction.]]]]]

 Thus, if the Earth were positively charged in the interior, but negatively charged in the exterior so that the charges balanced, it would exert the same electromagnetic force on objects outside it as if it had no charge at all.

[[[[[But the charges are not balanced. Earth has a net positive charge in excess of the negatively charged matter on the surface. And there is no object or particle (except alphas) that can exist on the surface that can exist for longer than 10^-24 seconds without becoming negatively charged with respect to the center of the earth. (excess electrons will neutralize some of its positive charge.]]]]]

Problem #3 - Troy says that to determine the mass of the moon requires solving an equation with three unknowns; the teacher says it requires solving three equations with four unknowns.  Both, however, are incorrect.  The mass of the Earth is known, from the acceleration it gives to falling objects.

[[[[[The fact is that we don't even know what mass is. Theoretical physicists hypothesize that there is a hypothetical particle called a Higgs boson that somehow imbues matter with the quality we call mass.

The only facts that are certain is that there is some characteristic of matter that is related to forces by the equation F=ma.]]]]

 (Note that while the force isn't known a priori, F=ma and F=G(m*M)/r^2.  Thus, ma=G(m*M)/r^2, which gives us a=GM/r^2.  This gives us an equation with two knowns and two unknowns, with the mass of the Earth and the universal constant of gravitation being the two unknowns.  G was determined by Cavendish's famous experiment, using two known masses and measuring their gravitational attraction (an experiment which I know works, because I've personally reproduced it in Intermediate Physics lab in college).  With G being known, we have only one unknown (the mass of the Earth), which we can then solve for.

[[[[[Cavendish's experiment showed only that there was an attraction between solid lead balls. Troy's hypothesis stated that if an electric field existed in a body which varied inversely in proportion to the square of the distance from it's center, the force it exerts would be indistinguishable from gravity. By definition, density is a function of the mean distance between nuclei. When nuclei are closer, they can share the charge of neighboring atoms leaving free electrons which repel each other and move to distribute themselves equally around the outside of the object.

In effect, the electric cause of gravity Troy hypothesized would have to work on all object or it would be distinguishable from gravity. And mass becomes that quality of matter that is affected by an electric field.]]]]

Once we know the mass of the Earth, determining the mass of the Moon is done by observing where the center point that the Earth-Moon system revolves around is.  This can be determined by astronomical observations which show the "wobble" of the Earth as it moves around the center of the system.  Knowing that, we can determine the mass of the Moon relative to the Earth... and since we know the mass of the Earth, we can determine the mass of the Moon.

Knowing the mass of the Earth and how fast it revolves around the Sun, we can then determine the mass of the Sun.

[[[[All you are saying is that you are using three equations with four unknowns to solve for the unknown quality you refer to as mass and the unknown force you refer to as gravity.]]]]

In your epilogue, you predict that "the speed of light is not a constant and the electric field is the ether through which is travels" -- the Michaelson-Morley experiment (another one that I was required to perform in my advanced physics lab), however, proves that this is not the case.  The speed of light in a given medium *is* a constant.

[[[[[Only because the Michaelson-Morley experiment could not be preformed outside the stationary and uniform electric field of the solar system. It assumed that the ether was moving, it isn't.]]]]]

You also predict that light should be affected by electromagnetic fields.

[[[[[Again, there is no such thing as an electromagnetic field.]]]]]

 Experiment shows that it is not.  You state that "the wave transmits by moving charged particles in the field through which it moves."  This is also easily disproved by the simple fact that electromagnetic waves will propagate in a vacuum.

[[[[There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. No matter where you look, there are particles measured in density per square cc, cm, ck, or cubic parsec. An electric field is proportional to distance. Every particle within the field (the entire solar system) is affected by the wave (an increase in the intensity of the field)]]]]

So... the arguments Troy advances about not being able to determine the masses of the Sun, Moon, and planets are easily refuted (and, while you don't state what Professor Marshal is a professor of, any physics or astronomy professor should know how they are determined).  The theory advanced does not hold up, since it ignores the fact that, if "gravity" were actually the electromagnetic force, it would attract (and repel!) objects based on their charge rather than their mass and Gauss' Law.  And the predictions given based on the theory do not hold up.

Lastly, your point that "all of science collapses when one of the fundamental laws turns out to be merely a local phenomenon".  There is simply no reasonable basis for this.  Sure, if gravity were disproved, everything that has been determined relying on gravity would have to be re-examined -- but there's plenty of science that has nothing at all to do with gravity.  Biology, chemistry, electromagnetism....

[[[[[And you think that Biology aren't chemistry affected by electric field or gravity? What holds a molecule together?What happens when you subject an organism to a higher or lower electric field?]]]]]

Indeed, if you truly believe that disproving gravity would collapse "all of science", then your own explanation makes no sense, since you're attempting to use another part of science (electromagnetic theory) as your alternative explanation.  If "all of science" were collapsed, you could no longer rely on *any* of it.

[[[[There is a vast difference between Scientific observations and science supposition. We never could rely on the latter and we'll always be able to rely on the former. Until you understand the difference, you are a pseudo scientist.]]]]]]

visitor counter