wrote in message
oups.com...
Umm well we can, water can be made to flow up hill on a slope.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060329_water_uphill.html

No, it can't. The water is propelled by steam. It's not flowing, it's
boiling.

And steam makes a frictionless cushion so it should be shooting
downhill. There was also another URL which you have conveniently
snipped
from your reply.


"Bill" wrote:
And water vapor goes up to make clouds all without the help of scientists
or
steam.


Nice backpedal.
You really urped on that one "Bill."

Please explain. I don't understand your comment.




Gravity does not exist at the LaGrangian point.


Yes it does. Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity
of one mass is cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no
effect on free bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.

How does one know it exists there? By measuring it? Or by postulating it?
If gravity of one mass is cancelled by another then it does not exist, the
net force is zero. Zero means nothing. Anyway, you are completely wrong.
Gravity can be higher at a Lagrangian point provided it is countered by
acceleration forces. It says so on this NASA website:

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wlagran.html

"There exists another Lagrangian point L2 at about the same distance from
Earth but on the night side, away from the Sun. A spacecraft placed there is
more distant from the Sun and therefore should orbit it more slowly than the
Earth; but the extra pull of the Earth adds up to the Sun's pull, and this
allows the spacecraft to move faster and keep up with the Earth. "

Here we see no cancellation of gravity at all. Your definition of a
Langrangian point is incorrect. There are many places in space where there
is no local gravity.






Oil droplets could go up or down under the control of Milliken.


Wrong again. Oil droplets could appear to go up or down under his
telekinetic control.
"Seems" is not the same as "is" no matter how much it appears to be.


Milliken won the Nobel Prize for measuring the charge to mass ratio of
electrons. He used an electric field to lift or drop oil droplets.
"Telekinetic control" is in the realm of pseudoscience. Milliken was not a
stage actor who entertained audiences, he was a real scientist who
discovered some of the fundamentals we use today. Here is some information
on the man and the experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment

I may be missing something, but could you refer me to where he used
"Telekinetic control" on the oil droplets. There is some controversy over
his fudging of the data which would indicate he could not use his mind to
control the outcome of the experiment. Could you explain more please?




If one accelerates toward the earth at the correct rate the gravitational
field disappears.


Nope. It is cancelled out by the acceleration (the "correct rate"
happens to be 32 ft/sec/sec, or about 1 g.... how difficult is it to
figure this out?) but gravity never "disappears."

Gravitational field disappears to the observer. The correct rate depends on
altitude and location over the earth. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/free-fall.html Quotes Einstein as
follows:

"Just as is the case with the electric field produced by electromagnetic
induction, the gravitational field has similarly only a relative existence.
For if one considers an observer in free fall, e.g. from the roof of a
house, there exists for him during his fall no gravitational field---at
least in his immediate vicinity. (A. Einstein, manuscript written in 1919"





Photons do not change speed due to acceleration in the earth's
gravitational
field. They change colour.


An energy effect nontheless. Does a net change in energy always cause
a change in velocity and only a change in velocity? There are other
forms of energy.

Actually it causes a net change in momentum which is a change in velocity or
mass or one looks at the total differential. Furthermore a change in color
is a change in velocity, the photon vibrates about its central position
faster or slower according to its new frequency. If it maintains the same
amplitude and a higher frequency it must oscillate faster. Where do you
think the higher energies come from at higher frequencies (shorter
wavelengths)? Since the ensemble velocity is fixed and the mass is fixed
then the velocity of oscillation must increase to account for the higher
energy.

Velocity is the only form of energy. Heat is the movement of particles,
electromagnetic energy is the movement of charge, etc. Potential energy
(energy not realized) is the only form not involving velocity because it is
static. Furthermore, the velocity must be relative to a reference.






A clock runs at two different rates for two observers travelling at
different speeds.


No they don't. They run at different rates relative to the observers.

I'm talking about a single clock. Why are you talking about 2 clocks? All
measurement is relational.



In other words, "Bill" you flunked the physics test and you don't know
as much as you think you do.

By your standard? Please correct my responses to your comments above.




In spite of all these wonders there still ain't no such thing as a free
lunch.

Got that one right.... the 1/2 pt extra credit doesn't save your grade
though.


I look forward to your help and comments with my replies to your
scientifically astute and accurate commentary. It's not often we get someone
here who really knows their **** and is willing to help others. Thanks
immensely.

Bill




DSK

Gravity does not exist at the LaGrangian point.

Yes it does. Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity
of one mass is cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no
effect on free bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.


"Bill" wrote:
How does one know it exists there? By measuring it? Or by postulating it?
If gravity of one mass is cancelled by another then it does not exist, the
net force is zero.

There is a big difference between "does not exist" and "net force =
zero."

... Zero means nothing. Anyway, you are completely wrong.
Gravity can be higher at a Lagrangian point provided it is countered by
acceleration forces. It says so on this NASA website:



So, you said gravity doesn't exist, now you say that it not only may
exist but that those who know most about it say it is greater; then
you say that I'm "completely wrong."

Good work.


I look forward to your help and comments with my replies to your
scientifically astute and accurate commentary. It's not often we get someone
here who really knows their **** and is willing to help others. Thanks
immensely.


You're welcome immensely.

DSK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Gravity does not exist at the LaGrangian point.

Yes it does. Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity
of one mass is cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no
effect on free bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.


"Bill" wrote:
How does one know it exists there? By measuring it? Or by postulating it?
If gravity of one mass is cancelled by another then it does not exist,
the
net force is zero.

There is a big difference between "does not exist" and "net force =
zero."

Yes there is. But how does one tell the difference?



... Zero means nothing. Anyway, you are completely wrong.
Gravity can be higher at a Lagrangian point provided it is countered by
acceleration forces. It says so on this NASA website:



So, you said gravity doesn't exist, now you say that it not only may
exist but that those who know most about it say it is greater; then
you say that I'm "completely wrong."

Good work.

The good work goes to you. You've parsed out all of the previous thread to
only the above point. Why is that?

You said gravity cancels at the Lagrangian point. I said it does not exist.
For simplicity let's throw away the L2, L3... Langrangian points and deal
with just the L1 point since it can be argued that in a first order case
there is no net gravity at that point. Agreed?

You say the gravity there exists but it cancels to zero.

I say the gravity does not exist because it is zero.

Of course we are talking of the total or net gravitational field at a point
in space. Now if you were in a black box at the L1 point and not aware of
the external cicrumstances and took out your gravitometer and measured zero
what would your conclusion be? Would it be there is no field here (Occam's
razor) or would you conclude that there are bodies nearby in such
arrangement to have their fields cancel? Remember you are in a black box.

So tell me of an experiment to be performed at a single point in space that
can resolve all the gravitational vectors upon that point.

Is there no gravity at the center of the earth or is there lots of gravity
that just happens to cancel to zero?

Since when does the quantity zero imply the existence of anything?

As far as being completely wrong, you are. Here is a bit on the LaGrangian
point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

"The Lagrange points mark positions where the combined gravitational pull of
the two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to
rotate with them."

This is not what you said, you only considered gravity.




I look forward to your help and comments with my replies to your
scientifically astute and accurate commentary. It's not often we get
someone
here who really knows their **** and is willing to help others. Thanks
immensely.


You're welcome immensely.

I'd like to be regraded. You said:

"In other words, "Bill" you flunked the physics test and you don't know
as much as you think you do."


But you didn't know who Milliken was, you believed he was like the Amazing
Kreskin; you weren't aware of Einstein saying the gravity field ceases to
exist for an observer in a free fall; you mistook my single clock running at
two different rates for two different observers as 2 clocks in different
inertial frames, disagreed with what I said and then essentially restated
what I said to make your point; you failed to account for the increase in
oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant; you have not defended your
position that not all realized energy involves movement, which it does; you
claim that things exist when measured to be zero and exhibit no effect what
so ever on test particles. In view of these oversights on your part would
you kindly regrade the physics test? I am but a simple student/observer of
natural philosophy seeking direction.

I'll gladly admit any mistakes I have made if you kindly point them out. I
just don't see how I deserve a failing grade or how you can possible
estimate how much I think I know about physics.The bottom line is it's not
what you think you know, it's what you can prove, measure and demonstrate. I
tried to do that with all the points we disagreed upon to the best one can
do in a single USENET post. It now seems the only point left with which we
disagree is that you say:

Even though gravity measured is zero it is really there but cancels itself.

And I say:

If gravity is measured to be zero, it (gravity) does not exist at the point
of measurement.

My statement is the fundamental law of identity A---A A is A. A being
"zero" or "non existence".

Your argument is A----A+*A. This essentially says that A can be itself plus
elements that are not itself. Carrying it one step further by making A to be
zero, you are making nothing to be made up of constituent elements that when
added make it zero, but the elements are still there, existing beyond all
senses and measurement.


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Bill

There is a big difference between "does not exist" and "net force =
zero."

"Bill" wrote:
Yes there is. But how does one tell the difference?


By pondering the difference between physics and semantics.

If they were the same thing, we wouldn't need two different words for
them, now would we?


I'd like to be regraded.


True.
Very good, your average is improving.

Please provide more details on your machine for using the Earth's
rotation as a power source. Sounds like a great idea as long as we can
keep it a secret from Al Gore.

DSK

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:57:37 -0700, wrote:

Please provide more details on your machine for using the Earth's
rotation as a power source. Sounds like a great idea as long as we can
keep it a secret from Al Gore.

I like a dam with a gate to let the high tide in, and a turbine in the
path when you let it out at low tide. Bay of Fundy has about a sixty
foot rise and fall. Regular hydroelectric plant, not tiny at all.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:43:24 -0600, "Bill" wrote:

oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant

Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.

Casady

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:40:23 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote this crap:


Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.


You people are ****ing nuts. You don't have any idea of physics.






I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

In rec.boats.cruising Bloody Horvath wrote:
:On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:40:23 GMT, (Richard
:Casady) wrote this crap:

:
:Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
:frequency, the more energy a photon has.


:You people are ****ing nuts. You don't have any idea of physics.

Some guy named Einstein won a Nobel prize for proving that. He didn't
have any idea about physics either, the prize was in chemistry.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:43:24 -0600, "Bill" wrote:

oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant

Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.

Casady

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest...lens_math.html

"Photons climbing out of a gravitating object become less energetic. This
loss of energy is known as a "redshifting", as photons in the visible
spectrum would appear more red. Similarly, photons falling into a
gravitational field become more energetic and exhibit a blueshifting. The
observed energy E_observed at radius r_observed of a photon emitted at
radius r_emitted with energy E_emitted is [7] "

On 2007-10-15 11:14:20 -0400, "Bill" said:

Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity of one mass is
cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no effect on free
bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.

How does one know it exists there? By measuring it?

By using it. There are a few satellites sitting in the vicinity of the
various Lagrange points.

Even there, the gravitational forces aren't exactly cancelled, but
exist in a dynamic balance.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/