There was an experiment on the space station that shows smaller objects orbit larger ones. That experiment is the space station orbiting the earth.

Ftfy

That experiment is the space station falling around the earth.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-satellite-orbit-without-falling-into-the-Earth

I know how orbiting works. Why do you think that's relevant?

It orbits by neutralizing gravity, not employing it, apparently.

Continue. This is important....why?

Ask science, I'm just offering some perspective that I've never heard before a few years ago, that most still haven't heard.

Which is, satellites fall around the earth to miss crashing into the earth (like a plot device out of hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy), which does not necessarily demonstrate gravity as much as it accounts for it.

It's not floating by way of gravity any more than we are floating on earth, by way of gravity, according to science. I'm just the messenger.

I can't imagine that we could.

That's the $19 billion dollar question, indeed.

Because gravity is a horseshoe theory that defies normal physics.

Because in the space sarttion or shuttle, you have a bowling ball, a ball bearing...and the mass of the entire ship to contend with. The ship's mass will greatly impact the gravity experiment.

Mico-gravity's weak force is not causing them to attract, there has not been an on-board experiment showing that that I have found, please offer any lead to one, if you might.

Things on-board the ISS is also participating in the falling around the earth and you would likely need solve for a 3-body problem to try and observe a micro-gravitational attraction, which already is relatively weak.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-microgravity-58.html

Can you, let us know what point you're trying to make? Because it a mystery to me. Keep it short if you can, pretend I'm stupid.

I don't know the answers, I'm just trying to figure out OPs question also, and offering perspective to help remove contradictions in logic as they arise, so we can get closer to a better understanding, together.

All part of the scientific process, as far as I'm concerned.

The USBC specifies that a bowling ball weigh a maximum of 7.26 kg and has a maximum diameter of 21.83cm (radius 10.915cm).

Lets assume we want to put a ball bearing into orbit around a bowling ball of the maximum size, at a distance of 1.085cm above the surface of the bowling ball.

We can use this calculator to determine what orbital velocity the ball bearing would need in order to stay in orbit around the bowling ball.

Plugging in the numbers (7.26kg and 23cm) we get an orbital velocity of 0.00006353677747966134 m/s (0.06353677747966134 mm/s).

A circle with a radius of 12cm (120mm) will have a circumference of 75.39822368615503 cm (753.9822368615503 mm).

To complete one full orbit, the ball bearing will take 11,866.863047986756848025009326837 seconds.

So, for an experiment of this nature to be carried out so that you can observe just one full orbit, you need to film the experiment for around 3.3 hours.

Even if there was such a video, I highly doubt you'd watch it.

Where in your math would you account for the force of gravity applied to it, and, do you predict that, with the math, we would be able to measure and observe such effect.

Restated, now that we can show the math needed, does this math ensure that a bearing will appear to float around a bowling ball?

Or have we gone circular in our logic, assuming that it has to work, since the math would check out, even though the experiment hasn't been done?

I'm not making the accusation that this is the case, I'm just hoping for clarification, and thanks.

Where in your math would you account for the force of gravity applied to it

Did you click through to the calculator I linked? That equation includes the gravitational constant.

do you predict that, with the math, we would be able to measure and observe such effect?

The math tells you what the orbital velocity would be of an object orbiting a bowling ball one centimeter above its surface. The problem is the numbers are so small that the margin of error is tiny. Any slight perturbation of the velocity of the ball bearing would cause it to leave orbit.

So to carry out the experiment you'd need to prevent anything from influencing that velocity - no air resistance, no static attraction, no other gravitational fields... you even need to prevent light from putting pressure on the ball bearing.

If you can isolate the bowling ball and ball bearing to that level then yes, you'd see the ball bearing "float" around the bowling ball. It's the first part that is nearly impossible.

Remember we're talking about a small scale experiment. If we carry out the experiment on a much larger scale these other variables have less of a potential affect (although they still have an affect).

Such a large scale experiment is carried out every time we put a satellite in orbit around the earth.

Did you click through to the calculator I linked? That equation includes the gravitational constant.

Sorry, I didn't, and you're right, it's right in the equation, thank you.

Such a large scale experiment is carried out every time we put a satellite in orbit around the earth.

I appreciate the explanation, I'm still not fond of the idea that a satellite in space is the experiment, as I discussed in the other comment.

I would argue that it demonstrates parity to the notion that the math works for gravity, at best, as the influence of gravity has to be accounted for, wrt orbital mechanics. So, it seems that we are back to square one in regards to the OPs question, which is a practical experiment, not an application of knowledge.

But I do defer to your comment saying that it can't practically be done at that scale, which would either answer OPs original question, or at least move the discussion to the scalability of gravity, as OP's premise was that he said he doesn't accept that it's not scalable.

I guess one would need to show that we don't possess the the technology to observe such phenomenon (is it beyond CERN's capability, for example?).

I would argue that it demonstrates parity to the notion that the math works for gravity, at best, as the influence of gravity has to be accounted for, wrt orbital mechanics. So, it seems that we are back to square one in regards to the OPs question, which is a practical experiment, not an application of knowledge.

this is absolute gibberish.

Please elaborate to add some meat to your argument, I like where it's going so far though.

I'm sorry haha I'm not going to get into this further but... anyone who speaks english is laughing pretty hard at that string of words. not even kidding, you made me laugh out loud.

i want to believe that this is a troll account. if so - bravo.

if this shit is real... it's a sad window into the mind of someone who took a pass on post secondary education. you have been given a pretty clear answer and explanation and it goes in one ear and out the other... justified by that weird word salad? weird as fuck. funny but weird.

Awesome, totally busted! I had you going there for a while though, huh? Here, have some pearls.

http://www.taryncoxthewife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Pearls-1.jpg

I'm still not fond of the idea that a satellite in space is the experiment, as I discussed in the other comment.

That makes no sense. As I pointed out a satellite in orbit around the earth is a just a small scale experiment of the earth being in orbit around the sun - the math is the same, only the scale changes.

So, it seems that we are back to square one in regards to the OPs question, which is a practical experiment, not an application of knowledge.

What exactly is a "practical experiment" if not an "application of knowledge"?

What we know is that the force of gravity is very small, much smaller than other forces, and as such only really has measurable effects on fairly large scales. When you get to the scale of a bowling ball, the effects are so small that other forces play a much larger role and confound the results of any experiment.

The simple fact is, the laws of gravitation are the same at any scale, and have been observed and experimentally proved at practical scales.

Let me turn it around... why do you believe a smaller scale experiment would have different results from larger scale experiments? What theoretical basis do you have to believe that the laws of gravitation are different at the scale of a bowling ball versus the scale of a planet?

If you have no reason to believe the laws are different at different scales, why do you not see the launch into orbit of Sputnik I as an experiment that validated the laws of gravity?

I'm still not fond of the idea that a satellite in space is the experiment, as I discussed in the other comment. That makes no sense. As I pointed out a satellite in orbit around the earth is a just a small scale experiment of the earth being in orbit around the sun - the math is the same, only the scale changes.

With regard to the OPs request, and it will be up to OP to offer clarification, his query about practical experiments, to me, inferred that he meant other than how it's been employed on (relatively) larger scales, and for multiple people in this thread to respond by circling back to the (relatively) larger scale applications, is disingenuous and avoiding the question, in my opinion.

I did appreciate that you offered that it isn't feasible at smaller scales, which wouldve seemed to give a more direct answer to OP, or at least led the discussion to scalability.

Again, each of the answers regarding satellites is arguably inferring that the OPs question isn't valid, and could be read condescendingly, and OP seems to want to find answers, not rationalizations that makes him/her feel that the question is stupid for asking.

To me, he inferred that he meant practical, as in other than how it's been employed on (relatively) larger scales

No, what he meant is he wants examples of impractical experiments. He wants to ignore the practical experiments that have been carried out and instead see experiments that are so difficult to carry out that they are impractical .

Putting a satellite into orbit around the earth was a practical experiment testing the hypothesis that there is a lateral velocity at which the force of gravitational attraction can be balanced out so that the object remains in orbit - not flying away into deep space, nor falling back to the earth.

This was a test of our understanding of gravity that proved that the theory of gravitational attraction was fundamentally correct.

That theory explains how the moon remains in orbit around the earth, how the earth remains in orbit around the sun, and how the sun remains in orbit around the galaxy. And it also explains how a ball bearing can remain in orbit around a bowling ball given the right conditions.

So the question remains... if OP agrees that the laws of gravitational attraction are scalable, why does he expect to see different results from a much smaller scale (and therefore almost impossible to carry out) experiment?

Why is he not satisfied that the thousands of larger scale experiments that tested the theory are enough to prove the theory?

No, those are much too small. At that scale, a little static electricity is millions of times more forceful than gravity.

Well there are observations of Mars and other planets in the solar system with their own moons.

Well there are observations of Mars and other planets in the solar system with their own moons.

This is a good start, it'll set up the premise for such experiment.

1. We observe moons around other planets.

2. Are they hung by an invisible string (spoiler: no), is it a force such as gravity, or some darkly energetic phenomenon, etc?

3. Practical experiment: ________

4. Profit.

The OP is asking if anyone has filled in the blank yet.

The first such experiment was carried out in October 1957.

It involved putting a small satellite into orbit around the earth.

As I've discussed in a few other comments, I see that as an application of knowledge, and not a practical experiment, which is what the OP is asking for, to keep things straight.

I understand that you stated that it wasn't scalable, and I defer to the other discussions in this thread for that.

I understand that you stated that it wasn't scalable

No, you totally misunderstand. It is scalable, which is the problem.

It is currently not practical to carry out an experiment at the scale of a bowling ball, but the exact same experiment tested the exact same theory at a practical scale and proved that the same rules that keep the earth in orbit around the sun also keep a small satellite in orbit around the earth, proving that theory to be valid.

I see what your saying now, thanks for the clarification.

...also keep a small satellite in orbit around the earth, proving that theory to be valid.

However, like I discussed in the other comment, it's not that gravity keeps a small satellite in orbit. Gravity, according to science, is doing anything but helping it stay up there, and a craft has to accelerate to go fast enough to mitigate gravity's pull, to keep it falling around the earth.

That's also why I'm saying that satellites orbits aren't possible because of gravity, it is done in spite of it, and there for not an experiment positively showing attraction, but negating it's effect. Otherwise, throwing a ball and watching it fall would just as well be an answer to OPs question, as much as satellites in space (which neither do, in my opinion).

However, like I discussed in the other comment, it's not that gravity keeps a small satellite in orbit.

Actually, it is... if there was no gravitational attraction even the smallest velocity in a direction other than directly at the planet would cause an object to fly away into deep space.

Yes, it is a balance between lateral velocity, diameter of the earth and the gravitational attraction, but if you change any one of those things you do not get an "orbit".

That's also why I'm saying that satellites orbits aren't possible because of gravity, it is done in spite of it

And that is where you are wrong. An object in uniform motion will stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by an outside force. A satellite moving through space at thousands of miles per hour will fly in a dead straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.

To have a circular orbit, there must be an outside force. That force is gravity. Without gravity there is no "orbit". Just satellites flying off in straight lines into deep space.

That's also why I'm saying that satellites orbits aren't possible because of gravity, it is done in spite of it And that is where you are wrong.

That's fair, thanks. Gravity is a mathematical factor that needs to be precise for the balancing act to work, according to orbital mechanics, I digress from my wholesale statement that it merely opposes it, according to the math. I can dig it.

I clearly get thrown off by the notion that we call it "falling around the earth", as that is equally an overly simplistic explanation, from which I made that statement, as acceleration has to mitigate, but not overtake, the gravitational math.

I stick to my guns in that this is not an answer to the OPs question, nevertheless.

So, the theory goes that a larger object will orbit a smaller one.

which theory is that? both objects orbit the center of mass of the system.

Other than the existence of orbiting spacecraft, you mean?

Do you have even the slightest inclination of how difficult such a small scale experiment would be to set up, and how long it would take to carry out?

Let me put it this way, a ball bearing orbiting just over a centimeter above a bowling ball would need a velocity of only 0.0635 mm/s and even a slight variation from this velocity would send it flying away from the bowling ball or crashing into its surface.

On top of that, it would take more than three hours for the ball bearing to complete one orbit.

The experiment would have to carried out in a vacuum, with objects not statically charged and not influenced by any other gravitational field.

Basically, it would be near impossible to set up and run this experiment as you wish to see it...

Would this place, or something like it, be able to facilitate such an experiment possibly?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1855.html

No. Remember the huge (relatively speaking) gravitational pull of the earth would cause the ball bearing and bowling ball to fall to the bottom of the chamber, where friction against the floor would act to slow down the ball bearing's motion.

To properly test this, the bowling ball and ball bearing would have to be completely devoid of outside forces such as friction.

Think about this... the ISS has to regularly fire its station-keeping thrusters to overcome the tiny amount of friction of the extremely rarefied atmosphere at its altitude. If it didn't, it would eventually slow down enough to fall out of orbit.

Even the pressure of sunlight hitting the ISS has a tiny affect on its ability to stay in orbit.

To carry out this experiment with a bowling ball and ball bearing would probably take some sort of enormous but low mass capsule in deep space capable of blocking any outside force from acting on the ball bearing and bowling ball. Even then the balls would probably have to be made of some sort of exotic material to prevent any sort of electrostatic affects.

Put simply, it is highly unlikely that such an experiment will be carried out just to satisfy the people that doubt that satellites prove the laws of gravitation... and even if it was, those people would probably claim it was faked by NASA.

That's all good info, thanks for putting in the time to respond, much appreciated.

it doesn't hold at the quantum scale.

No there hasn't, and you will never reproduce the fantastic effects of space and gravity. The cavendish experiment can't be reproduced but it a hoax that people will point to for mass attraction. Earth is flat, open your eyes.