Proposition: Gravity is W shaped and not U shaped, page 1

Mmmkay. Re-edit. I came across as a bit... highhanded, I think. Let's edit it and see if I can sound less like I'm on a scientific high horse or something.

Originally posted by slank
.
For a structural Mass body:

As one travels inside a structural mass body (planet, star) [as opposed to a point black hole] the pull back towards the surface counters the pull to the center of the body. So at the center the net pull of gravity is zero.

Newtonian gravitation says that if you expand the Earth into a hollow shell, there is no apparent gravity within the shell:
www.astro.queensu.ca...

In practice, this wouldn't be true because of local variations in gravity. But it's a convenient model to use (the math isn't quite as hair-pulling) if you're doing research.

If you graph it as a function the classic image of balls rolling on a rubber sheet ['U' shaped gravity field] is incorrect. It would actually create a smoothed out 'W' shape that is lighter in the middle with the deepest/strongest gravity at the surface.

The problem with using models is that they don't always accurately reflect the mathematics or the dynamics of the situation. They're convenient shorthands (just as you can have a 30 second retelling of any movie) but they shouldn't be subsituted for the whole concept.

www.fourmilab.ch...

You would, in fact, get the U-shaped model. It's the basic inverse square law function. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. You're trying to model gravity inside a sphere with a single composition, right (because actually using the Earth requires a huge boatload of math and you won't actually get a zeropoint at the center of the earth.)

It makes me wonder about gravitons. Working in parallel alignment they create a big stretch in space, but when opposed they cancel one another out.

I surely must be misunderstanding. Gravitons are hypothetical. Nobody's ever found one. They still obey the Inverse Square Law -- at particle levels they seem to obey the Quantum Physics principles. Nobody has ever gotten a graviton in "parallel"... and I don't see a model under which that would be possible.

Remember that they're always attractive (always pull, never push). So there's no such thing as "opposing ones that cancel one another out" any more than pointing one flashlight to your left and another to your right is going to get the light beams to cancel out.

What you propose really doesn't mesh with Feynman's calculations (and with plain old observation) or with Planck's theories. If you're going to disagree with them, you need to show mathematically where the models are wrong and provide some proof. Models also predict, so you would need to show why your predictions using this model are better than theirs.
www.answers.com...

Another stray notion:
Each atom's mass particles have their own little gravity wells so the image of a smooth space fabric stretch is only a gross approximation, in reality the warp of space must be very complex. So the stretch of surrounding space might be smooth and deep, but as you arrive at the atoms it becomes this very complex, spikey, microscopic, up & down, warps in space.

Uhmmmm...
www.madsci.org...

You seem to have temporarily misremembered your quantum physics; the electron has a tiny amount of mass but is both a particle and a wave simultaneously. Waves don't have gravitational wells. There's no such thing as "heavy light."

You seem to be trying to apply a simple Newtonian type model to a model that's actually done with quantum physics. And ... not trying to be offensive, here... your model of the atom is a few years behind the times.

Footnote: If you have an absolute structureless backhole in space the gravity well would form a curved at the top 'V' shape.

I don't see where you've proved any of the classic equations wrong or in need of correction, here. Remember that Newtonian physics, while interesting and elegant, is inadequate for current thought and research. You need to address the works of Einstein, Schwarzchilde, Planck, Feynman, and the like (as well as explain where the experiments that proved the concept went wrong.)

I haven't had my morning coffee, so the brain isn't quite as sharp as it could be. But I don't see you've addressed the model's mathematics at all and shown where the correction lies and how to prove the correction.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Byrd]