It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How gravity really works

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: greenreflections
The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.


How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?



Space-time is stretched to infinity at the singularity.


A black hole is not a singularity.

There can only be one Plank singularity in the entire universe.

A black hole is merely the next level massive object up from a star.

It's an obvious misnomer.




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?



Space-time is stretched to infinity at the singularity.
A black hole is simply a volume of space where gravitational attraction (or the warping of space-time, if you like) is so strong that photons of light can't escape it. What exists at the centre of that volume of space is another matter, but the mainstream physics indicate it to be a singularity (an infinitely small and infinitely dense point).

What actually happens below the event horizon, is anyone's guess. I've enterntained an idea that, as the star collapses beyond the event horizon, it literally rips a hole in the fabric of space-time and, perhaps, branches off into a parallel universe.
edit on 10-6-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Trying to grasp a singularity is difficult, the definition that best suites our needs for a singularity is:

In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely.

Though I like the idea of the quantum singularity, I see it as a particle of matter that is pure matter, not made up of any particulates. I suspect all protons, neutrons, electrons, muon's, mesons, quarks and the like are constructed of the same material, matter. I don't think our 3 dimensional existence is infinite, sub-atomic particles are made up of smaller particles, which are made up smaller particles and so on, it has to stop somewhere, it can't go on forever into the micro world. I suspect there has to be a main component or building block that makes up all matter. It seems the main component would have to be pure matter, a non particulate substance that goes beyond our science and understanding.
edit on 10-6-2017 by SeekAnswers because: More thoughts



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
[Quote]
How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?




I don't know why you quoted me saying that. I didn't.
edit on 6/10/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekAnswers
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Trying to grasp a singularity is difficult, the definition that best suites our needs for a singularity is:

In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely.

Though I like the idea of the quantum singularity, I see it as a particle of matter that is pure matter, not made up of any particulates. I suspect all protons, neutrons, electrons, muon's, mesons, quarks and the like are constructed of the same material, matter. I don't think our 3 dimensional existence is infinite, sub-atomic particles are made up of smaller particles, which are made up smaller particles and so on, it has to stop somewhere, it can't go on forever into the micro world. I suspect there has to be a main component or building block that makes up all matter. It seems the main component would have to be pure matter, a non particulate substance that goes beyond our science and understanding.


Yeah, there can be only one. An infinitely small space can only exist in an infinite universe. In a finite universe, only one can exist, and it must make up the entire universe plus anything outside of it.

It's bad physics.

The best explanation that suits our needs is to refer to them as dark stars; the next massive object up from a light star; whose difference is the ability for light to escape.

Anyone thinking there are multiple infinitely dense mass point singularities is only reading books instead of visualizing reality.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon


Gravity is an expression of a conglomeration of matter whose net energy is less than that of equivalent matter existing in free space. Since falling toward a gravitational potential describes a loss of energy


If that was the case, objects would free fall to lets say, Moon's surface at different acceleration rate. Larger objects would free fall faster than lighter and smaller one. But that is not the case. All objects, regardless of the size, composition, mass, density fall toward Moon surface at the same rate..They will reach Moon's surface simultaneously. The proof was an experiment with hammer and feather done by Apollo 15 crew.
edit on 12-6-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I think, effect of gravity can be described as geometrical change in physical body shape when that body placed inside gravity affected area (field).

If we imagine hypothetical xyz grid, spacing on axis pointing toward source of gravity will grow with every next spacing mark infinitely further from the previous marking. Assuming any physical body is balanced and most efficiently composed, throwing it out of natural shape will produce inner resistance.
Front part of the ball will be further away from the center of balance. Forces reponsible for keeping physical body in balance will compensate new shape and 'move' in a direction of the receiding part of the body. Egg shape will form. Tidal forces are good visual example.

The trick is, since gravity field is a gradient, as soon as new shape been accomodated and the body is in balance again, the front part of the ball gets slightly away from the center. Inner forces compensate again moving center and dragging rear to achieve equilibrium. At that moment, front part of the ball gets even further away. At this point it is a run away process. And at any given moment rubber ball will be in weightless state.

Rubber ball will appear moving and accelerating in direction of Moon's surface.

Funny, my thoughts above suggest that the rubber ball does not move while accelerating in free fall. It is simply repeatedly attempting to maintain it's natural round shape, albeit unsuccessfully... well, another way to look at it.

Just to summarize a little with crude thought experiment:

Take thin rubber sheet and cut a circle out of it. Then glue it to aluminum plate. Start bending aluminum. Rubber circle will take oval form. But there is a limit to which extend you can bend aluminum plate before rubber circle unglues from one end and gets round again.

That's how I picture process of free fall.
edit on 25-6-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Nope. There is no gradient or shape factor in the gravitation equation.

The vertical gravitational gradient on earth surface is -3,086 µm/(s²·m). It varies depending on where you are, if there are large masses close to you. In a narrow valley (canyon) it can drop by 20-30%, while gravitational acceleration remains pretty much the same.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius


Nope. There is no gradient or shape factor in the gravitation equation.


Not sure what you mean by that but shape and gradient and space geometry have everything to do with gravitational pull.


The vertical gravitational gradient on earth surface is -3,086 µm/(s²·m). It varies depending on where you are, if there are large masses close to you. In a narrow valley (canyon) it can drop by 20-30%, while gravitational acceleration remains pretty much the same.


Gravimetric map can be looked at as landscape albeit gravitational, with its 'canyons' and 'mountains' and 'valleys'. I can look at that map as virtual 'surface' of that gravity scape. So here we have proximity factor at play from satellite to that 'surface'.
If satellite could go along that 'landscape' repeating every mountain or canyon curve on its wake, then the 'map' would look uniform. As satellite in pretty much circular orbit, distance to that virtual surface varies depending of gravity scape.

Flyby over the 'canyon' or 'mountain' only indicates proximity from satellite to gravity 'surface'. It is same as if two satellites orbiting absolutely uniform, from gravimetric perspective, planetary body... each would be at different altitudes (one satellite on higher and another one in lower orbit). With that said, do you think 'free fall' value would differ for both satellites in that scenario? I say 'no', free fall would remain the same except for gravimetric readings will be 'weaker' for the one orbiting at higher altitude.


Hope my explanation is more or less clear, unless I completely mis read and mis understood your post above.




edit on 4-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I don't know how gravity being generated, but how an apple falls toward Earth surface leaves no doubt 'gravitational pull' is purely geometric in nature. How else the fact that any physical body accelerate in their free fall in a vicinity of planetary body, like the Moon, at the same rate?

This also indicates that space-time has qualities of a physical entity itself...space-time is an 'object' with it's characteristics. For one, it can be 'bent', for example.

For better understanding, in xyz axis, most reasonable is to plaсe one out of three pointing directly toward gravity sourse. Sure, if I add body like a satellite into orbital motion, gradient will be less pronounced. In essence compared to free fall axis setup, this time axis pointing toward Earth will deviate to an angle proportional to duration inside gravity well and it's velocity at the moment of entry.

there....


cheers board)



edit on 22-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Since every physical body exerts it's gravity 'well', any interaction has to be taken into consideration in respect that when two gravity fields intersect, they mutually cancel out gradient curve in a process. As a result object experiencing 'weightlessness' during free fall.

It is impossible to tell which one is accelerating (free falling) taking in account that both are falling into each other, in a way, to some extend. Depends who's gravity field is 'deeper', that object will fall 'longer'.




edit on 22-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

As you say, spacetime has qualities of a physical entity itself. I say, if everything else is quanta, that is, particle in nature, why wouldn't space and time also have quantum characteristics?



posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekAnswers
a reply to: greenreflections

As you say, spacetime has qualities of a physical entity itself. I say, if everything else is quanta, that is, particle in nature, why wouldn't space and time also have quantum characteristics?


I think that's what Planck length and Planck time represent.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

I am describing massive objects. The experiment of Apollo 15 showed that there is one source of local gravity, it is less than 1G and that without resistance of air, object are attracted at equal rates.
If two massive objects met with 'G' ratings significantly more than 1G then the local speed of attraction would be many times faster than 10 m/sec/sec.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cinnamon
a reply to: greenreflections

The experiment of Apollo 15 showed that there is one source of local gravity, it is less than 1G and that without resistance of air, object are attracted at equal rates.


Fascinating...You are the second person who tells me objects fall at the same rate on the Moon because there is no air.

The question is how do the hammer and the feather move alongside all the way? What makes them fall step by step?
Have you ever wondered why mass makes no difference in free fall acceleration rate? To me it is proof that 'free fall' in accelerating pace caused strictly by topology change in gradient manner.

Has this fact been explained in depth by mainstream?





edit on 28-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Spatial dimentsions of an object shift makes an object to assume new shape.That new shape is placing center of balance of an object closer to front edge of an object. An object in attept to re claim it's original shape, moves to follow the nose that got further from the center of balance. But when 'end' seemingly catches up with 'nose', the 'nose' is a little further away and 'end' has to do more catching up.
The trick is that gravity changes spatial space in gradient manner. That shape change event becomes a run away process..free fall.

In essence object is not moving.it is only reclaiming its original shape due to its rigid nature. To the outside observer the object is falling (moving) toward surface.


there)









edit on 28-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Cinnamon
a reply to: greenreflections

The experiment of Apollo 15 showed that there is one source of local gravity, it is less than 1G and that without resistance of air, object are attracted at equal rates.


Fascinating...You are the second person who tells me objects fall at the same rate on the Moon because there is no air.

They fall at the same rate in a vacuum chamber on Earth, too. www.youtube.com...



The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass. Increasing force tends to increase acceleration while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration. Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass. Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass. www.physicsclassroom.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace


The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force..


What force? Gravity is not a force.





They fall at the same rate in a vacuum chamber on Earth, too


I know. I do not argue about that fact. Rather, I am trying to figure out effects of gravity possibbly be based only on space geometry. Free fall as well. And no 'force' involved..

At the same time, I am no expert at all. And I am not sure if I am asksing even coherent question))


thanks





edit on 29-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

So basically your saying geomertic deformation of objects induces kinetic energy in objects which we perceive as gravity?



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: wildespace


The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force..


What force? Gravity is not a force.

For the purposes of causing objects to accelerate, it is.

As to what actually causes the acceleration, it could be anything from the actual geometry of space, to time dilation, to virtual photons, to gravitons, or some combination of those.

Personally, I beleive gravity is due to dilation of time near massive bodies.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join