Does The Acceleration Of Horizontal Gravity Exist?

[christanson]

It appears to in the workings of the Cavendish balance.

 

Newton recognizes its existence, but goes on to say you do not need to be concerned with it in most equations because its vectors balance out. It would appear that the acceleration of horizontal gravity continually seeks an equilibrium state.

 

If it exists should it not be considered in the geodesists' flattening equation?

Edited April 19, 2012 by elijah

[christanson]

Is there no one in this august group of scientific experts who has an answer to this simple question?

[Turtle]

Is there no one in this august group of scientific experts who has an answer to this simple question?

 

no there is no horizontal acceleration of gravity. the acceleration of gravity is always and only at right angles to the centers of the masses by definition. the only folks invoking a horizontal acceleration are whack-job pseudo-science promoters of a hollow earth and other such nonsense. we have threads here debunking this idea but i decline to give the links as in my view it only promotes more waste of space & time. i venture no august experts here have answered your question because they are as sick & tired of it as i.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Turtle

[CraigD]

[Thread title:] Does The Acceleration Of Horizontal Gravity Exist?

No.

 

Gravity is a vector force, determined by the sum of the vectors given by the relative positions of the bodies involved, their masses, and the distanced between them. There are no “horizontal” vectors perpendicular to these vectors involved.

 

The very small force detected by a Cavendish balance is not caused by a force between the moving masses in the balance and the Earth, but between the moving and stationary masses in it. So the “horizontal” appearance of these forces is actually the ordinary “vertical” kind, between the fixed and stationary masses, which, because of how the balance is usually built, happen to be perpendicular to the much larger forces between the moving masses and the Earth.

[7DSUSYstrings]

It appears to in the workings of the Cavendish balance.

 

Newton recognizes its existence, but goes on to say you do not need to be concerned with it in most equations because its vectors balance out. It would appear that the acceleration of horizontal gravity continually seeks an equilibrium state.

 

If it exists should it not be considered in the geodesists' flattening equation?

 

It depends on the effective direction of gravity.

 

If gravity is an attractive force, yes, because quantum gravitational loops would include length as well as height and possibly depth. If gravity is is an inbound, impacting force, no, because the Cavendish experiment would demonstrate attraction of the spheres from an imbalance of internal streams, streams between the spheres and streams outside the spheres.

 

As of the moment, nobody really knows.

Edited April 22, 2012 by 7DSUSYstrings

[Turtle]

It depends on the effective direction of gravity.

 

If gravity is an attractive force, yes, because quantum gravitational loops would include length as well as height and possibly depth. If gravity is is an inbound, impacting force, no, because the Cavendish experiment would demonstrate attraction of the spheres from an imbalance of internal streams, streams between the spheres and streams outside the spheres.

 

As of the moment, nobody really knows.

 

no, no, and pure unadulerated unsupported crap. that you make your post following craig's answer and explanation is not only insolent, it is against our rules. yet again you give no reference per our rules, but of course this is because no such reference exists. before you, or anyone else accuses me of the same for my earlier post here, i gave the reason for not including a reference. cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh.

[Guest MacPhee]

It depends on the effective direction of gravity.

 

If gravity is an attractive force, yes, because quantum gravitational loops would include length as well as height and possibly depth. If gravity is is an inbound, impacting force, no, because the Cavendish experiment would demonstrate attraction of the spheres from an imbalance of internal streams, streams between the spheres and streams outside the spheres.

 

As of the moment, nobody really knows.

 

An interesting point. I suppose Cavendish did his experiment with solid, round balls. But what if instead, he'd used hollow balls. Or not balls at all, but lumps of matter in different shapes. Such as cubes, pyramids, or flat metal plates. Would use of non-spherical shapes like these, have made a difference to the result of his experiment - in fact stopped it working at all?

 

The experiment worked using simple solid spheres. Because a sphere has an obvious centre. Which draws all gravity-streams in towards it. But in a non-sphere, such as a thin flat plate, how do the gravity streams "know" where the centre is?

Edited April 22, 2012 by MacPhee

[Turtle]

An interesting point. I suppose Cavendish did his experiment with solid, round balls. But what if instead, he'd used hollow balls. Or not balls at all, but lumps of matter in different shapes. Such as cubes, pyramids, or flat metal plates. Would use of non-spherical shapes like these, have made a difference to the result of his experiment - in fact stopped it working at all?

 

The experiment worked using simple solid spheres. Because a sphere has an obvious centre. Which directs all gravity-streams towards it. But in a non-sphere, such as a thin flat plate, how do the gravity streams "know" where the centre is?

 

no small wonder you found that nonsense interesting macphee, or that you chose to ignore the factual post craig put up. did you bother to follow craig's link to the wiki article on the cavedish experiment? obviously not. at any rate, to have sufficient mass for the experiment a hollow sphere would have to be very large; so large as to make the experiment impractical. in addition the increased surface area of such a large sphere would make it more susceptible to disturbance by air currents than a small sphere (technically, the correct term is ball; see the article below on spheres for the distinction.) and necessitate even more structural components to negate these currents.

 

balls are used because a sphere contains the greatest volume with the least surface area of any shape. the less surface area, the less possibility of disturbance by air currents, the more compact the apparatus and the more accurate is the measurement sought by the experiment. balls also allow insuring that the centers of gravity of the test masses lie in the same horizontal plane. any mass has a center of gravity and the acceleration of gravity on any one mass by another is always and only at right angles to the centers. again, there is no such thing as "horizontal gravity".

 

Shpere

Eleven properties of the sphere

...

7.Of all the solids having a given volume, the sphere is the one with the smallest surface area; of all solids having a given surface area, the sphere is the one having the greatest volume. These properties define the sphere uniquely. These properties can be seen by observing soap bubbles. A soap bubble will enclose a fixed volume and due to surface tension its surface area is minimal for that volume. This is why a free floating soap bubble approximates a sphere (though external forces such as gravity will distort the bubble's shape slightly).

Edited April 22, 2012 by Turtle

[7DSUSYstrings]

An interesting point. I suppose Cavendish did his experiment with solid, round balls. But what if instead, he'd used hollow balls. Or not balls at all, but lumps of matter in different shapes. Such as cubes, pyramids, or flat metal plates. Would use of non-spherical shapes like these, have made a difference to the result of his experiment - in fact stopped it working at all?

 

The experiment worked using simple solid spheres. Because a sphere has an obvious centre. Which draws all gravity-streams in towards it. But in a non-sphere, such as a thin flat plate, how do the gravity streams "know" where the centre is?

 

 

I don't believe it has to know anymore that a stream of water knows where the center of a rock is. As a thought experiment, imagine we suspend a window screen inside a gimbal, then suspend the gimbal from a pulley system with a counterweight, far enough up where we can either allow the mist setting stream from a garden hose to either be sprayed through from beneath or outside and above our screen. Not only would there be a time lag when sprayed from beneath and through the screen, due to restoration force as the water reaches an effective level then descends, the downbound quantity of water will be less and upward force will be exerted because the soild wires of the mesh will encounter some water collisions. The mist falling from above will also have half the contact, but in half the time, thus over the same period, two downward impulses versus one up cancelled by one down.

 

From the horizontal acceleration aspect, we would be subject either direction from an imbalance of potential energy taking the easiest path which is to pinch the lesser volume, which adds to the outside volume as the two objects converge. Like with an object in space, shape is meaningless. In a stronger stream, where the banks constrain the flow, two partially hollow bodies, tethered one to each bank, would equally divide the flow, naturally it depends on the initial position of the partially floating objects.

 

Hopefully that's written well enough to convey the logic of the experiment.

[christanson]

I want to thank all of you for responding. Most of you immediately turn gravitational acceleration into a vector. Gravitational acceleration operates in all directions ie. Two cubic centimeters of pure water attract each other with a vector force equal in G the gravitational constant. As pointed out in posts to the topic "Is there gravity at the center of a perfect sphere" Newton used thin walled spheres to show that the sphere's total mass can be considered to be located at its center. He accomplished this proof by dividing the an orb (earth) into a series of thin walled spheres. He then took each sphere and sliced it into rings. He then rotated the mass of each ring around to a common circumference. He then calculated the gravitational force produced by that ring on a mass external to the orb. Using trigonometry, he then calculated the vertical force produced by that ring. He repeated the process for all rings in that shell, then did the same for all other shells. The sum of all vertical forces showed that all mass regardless of distribution could be considered to be located at the orb's center. However, he ignored the horizontal vectors, because they always balance out. But isn't that the nature of the acceleration of horizontal gravity, to hold every cubic centimeter of water in a hydrostatic model a state of static equilibrium? Break that state of static equilibrium as is done in an expansion earthquake and a tsunami occurs.

[Turtle]

I want to thank all of you for responding. Most of you immediately turn gravitational acceleration into a vector. Gravitational acceleration operates in all directions ie. Two cubic centimeters of pure water attract each other with a vector force equal in G the gravitational constant. As pointed out in posts to the topic "Is there gravity at the center of a perfect sphere" Newton used thin walled spheres to show that the sphere's total mass can be considered to be located at its center. He accomplished this proof by dividing the an orb (earth) into a series of thin walled spheres. He then took each sphere and sliced it into rings. He then rotated the mass of each ring around to a common circumference. He then calculated the gravitational force produced by that ring on a mass external to the orb. Using trigonometry, he then calculated the vertical force produced by that ring. He repeated the process for all rings in that shell, then did the same for all other shells. The sum of all vertical forces showed that all mass regardless of distribution could be considered to be located at the orb's center. However, he ignored the horizontal vectors, because they always balance out. But isn't that the nature of the acceleration of horizontal gravity, to hold every cubic centimeter of water in a hydrostatic model a state of static equilibrium? Break that state of static equilibrium as is done in an expansion earthquake and a tsunami occurs.

 

there is no such term "expansion earthquake" in geologic nomencalture. a tsunami is cause by a suitably large* quake on an undersea fault that uplifts one side of the fault relative to the other; called a dip-slip fault. a similarly large quake on an undersea fault where the sides move in a strike-slip fashion will not cause a tsunami, although it may cause small waves. (*on the order of mag 7.2 or greater is required to cause a tsunami as i recall)

 

fault

Fault types

 

Geologists can categorize faults into three groups based on the sense of slip:

1.a fault where the relative movement (or slip) on the fault plane is approximately vertical is known as a dip-slip fault

2.where the slip is approximately horizontal, the fault is known as a transcurrent or strike-slip fault

3.an oblique-slip fault has non-zero components of both strike and dip slip.

...

 

as to the rest of your post, the acceleration due to gravity is by definition a vector. again, there is no such thing as "horizontal" gravity.

[maddog]

... Most of you immediately turn gravitational acceleration into a vector. Gravitational acceleration operates in all directions.

elijah,

 

I am not sure how much physics you have studied. At the very least you must have been asleep at some very crucial points. You may never actually studied Tensors either as they are often taught at the graduate level. You are definitely confusing the concept of Tensors though with Vectors. There is only a subtle difference. Very simply (almost too...), a Vector is the concept of a value with a specific direction. Whereas a Tensor is a higher order object (in its simplest terms) which can be thought of a series of values corresponding a group of two or more separate directions. In engineering, Sress Tensors are used to structural fatigue of material. This typically has values in two directions. In General Relativity, spacetime can be deformed by gravity with a 4-Tensor (2nd Order Tensor in 4-dimensions).

 

So when you think classically as Newton had in the motion of an apple or the motion of the moon, a vector version of Newton's Law of Gravitation is used. In GR you are considering the deformation of spacetime by gravity, then a Tensor form is used.

 

All your reference about Newton and the derivation of gravity for spherical object was kinda' "blowing smoke". Much about nothing. I had to do that derivation for my first year physics course as an undergraduate. My distinction of the two different mathematical object is much clearer.

 

... But isn't that the nature of the acceleration of horizontal gravity, to hold every cubic centimeter of water in a hydrostatic model a state of static equilibrium?

I have never heard of the term "horizontal gravity". Now with trigonometry you can create the component contribution of gravity to a coordinate. There also is the Coriolis force. This is a normal force to the surface of the earth. A simpleton way (maybe inaccurate) is think of this as a torque against the rotation of the earth. For a better definition try wiki here Coriolis Effect.

 

Break that state of static equilibrium as is done in an expansion earthquake and a tsunami occurs.

I think Turles response about Earthquakes is better than mine. I think about very simply. When you have a sea quake that is up-thrust fault. One side or the other is thrusted upward. If this is enough, water being incompressible will move upward as well. Voila! You have a Tsunami. This has nothing directly to do with gravity.

 

maddog

Edited April 25, 2012 by maddog

[christanson]

When a tsunami occurs the tide runs out as it did in the 2002 Papua, New Guinea quake that caused a tsunami. It appears the water first receded from the shore. Then the flow reversed and a tidal wave overwhelmed the low-lying coastal region. With the exception of an ocean floor cave in, the types of faults you have mention would not cause a tsunami. That is why I call it an expansion quake. A void must be created for the water to recede from the shore then return with a vengeance.

[Turtle]

When a tsunami occurs the tide runs out as it did in the 2002 Papua, New Guinea quake that caused a tsunami. It appears the water first receded from the shore. Then the flow reversed and a tidal wave overwhelmed the low-lying coastal region. With the exception of an ocean floor cave in, the types of faults you have mention would not cause a tsunami. That is why I call it an expansion quake. A void must be created for the water to recede from the shore then return with a vengeance.

 

quite simply, you have no idea what you are talking about. stop posting this pseudo-scientific hogwash to our board. :naughty:

[christanson]

I would remind you Turtle that gravity is always a bidirectional acceleration. In teaching this subject professors get sloppy and make it a unidirectional acceleration because Earth is so much larger than any satellite we launch. But it is always a bidirectional acceleration.

Edited April 25, 2012 by elijah

[Turtle]

I would remind you Turtle that gravity is always a bidirectional acceleration. In teaching this subject professors get sloppy and make it a unidirectional acceleration because Earth is so much larger than any satellite we launch. But it is always a bidirectional acceleration.

 

i will remind you to stop posting this pseudo-scientific rubbish to our board. :naughty:

[maddog]

When a tsunami occurs the tide runs out as it did in the 2002 Papua, New Guinea quake that caused a tsunami. It appears the water first receded from the shore. Then the flow reversed and a tidal wave overwhelmed the low-lying coastal region. With the exception of an ocean floor cave in, the types of faults you have mention would not cause a tsunami. That is why I call it an expansion quake. A void must be created for the water to recede from the shore then return with a vengeance.

You can think of the vibrations of the tsunami or the quake that started it as an example of a simple harmonic oscillator. In this example there will be highs and lows. If you had an open mind, I would suggest you go look up a wiki on tsunami. I suspect this might be the opposite case based on some of your previous posts.

 

maddog