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.
Impact of mass redistributions on surface, rotation and gravity field of the Earth
Originally posted by Yarium
we can tell you what they do, why they do it, and so on, but the deepest question of "how" is infinitely regressable - at what point do you say "it just is"?
Originally posted by imbalanced
Does anyone know how it bends space/time ?
Originally posted by ultralo1
Originally posted by Yarium
we can tell you what they do, why they do it, and so on, but the deepest question of "how" is infinitely regressable - at what point do you say "it just is"?
I cannot believe person of science would say this. The whole idea behind science is to answer questions. By using that statement above it seems to say that "well we have learned enough".
Yarium I have usually respected your answers and regarded you as a well educated person. This statement is giving me pause and it is an opening for all kinds of arguements about the true nature of science.
The true nature of science= SWAG
SWAG= Scientific Wild A$$ Guess
Originally posted by angel42
Hooray, first post!
The problem here is that we're not really sure what gravity is, because we haven't a unified model of physics between atomic and cosmic scales. While there are loads of alternative theories (see Brans-Dicke gravitation, Loop Quantum Gravity, MOND, Process Physics, Tensor-Vector-Scalar Gravity and others), the two most well recognised theories are General Relativity and quantum gravity/graviton theory.[quote\
A very elegant summary. There's a number of alternative theories in science (which is why the astronomer couldn't answer it directly) and while the General relativity and the quantum gravity theories have a lot of support, there's not been a useful way to experess them.
General Relativity states that gravity is not actually a force (unlike EM and the weak and striong nuclear forces) but that the existence (or creation) of matter in a particular area causes a curvature of spacetime.
BTW, this is the explaination most often given, folks. This is Einstein's work (others also worked on it, but his name is most strongly linked with this concept.)
Any object with mass will always follow lines (geodesics) on this spacetime, so if, say, a piece of space around a star is curved toward the star, then any masses around it (like a comet for example) will naturally move towards the star. Note that there isn't really a 'force' acting on the comet - it just moves along a path...
Exactly. In addition to causing things to fall together, it also causes space to warp.
In quantum field theory, the graviton is the mediating particle of the gravitational force. Essentially a particle called a graviton is transmitted (or liekly exchanged) from one massive body to another. This causes the bodies to attract together.
As is said, it's a theory. Nobody ever smashed a graviton out of an atom (though we have found many subatomic particles.
The graviton was postulated because of the success of the standard model in modelling the other three fundamental forces using particle interactions (EM = photons, weak nuclear = W and Z bosons and strong nuclear = gluons). Though graviton theory produces good results in the classical limit (i.e. at regular everyday scales and energies) it goes all screwy at very small distances (lots of infinities and other difficulties in the equations). String and Superstring theory's treatment of the graviton are much better but as yet have not been reconciled with the well-verified predictions of general relativity.
In other words, things seem to change at the subatomic level. One of the new "best idea" models is string theory, but there's some flaws with this concept.
** Let's make it 4 cents - Bob Lazar hasn't got the faintest idea of how to make up a self consistent shaggy dog story - the strong nuclear force, or 'Gravity A' as Bob puts it, has been experimentally observed to be mediated by gluons, which are bound, like any other particle, by the fundamental 'top speed' of c, the speed of light... By that token, how can gravity be an instantaneous force?
Let's not forget that his magic aliens told him that element 115 was an element that had antigravity properties. When element 115 WAS created in the lab (in fact, in labs worldwide) it turned out to have NO antigravity properties at all.
Originally posted by angel42
what exactly are A and B modes of atoms, and what constitutes (and how do you measure/calculate) the 'mode value'?