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.

 

Gravity may venture where matter fears to tread

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Gravity may venture where matter fears to tread


www.newscientist.com

Gravity is the universal force. Not only does it stop us getting above ourselves, it keeps Earth orbiting around the sun, our sun swinging around the centre of the Milky Way, the Milky Way in a merry dance around its neighbours, and so on upwards. It is actually the weakest of nature's four forces, but whereas the other three - electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces - unleash their full strength only at the scales of atoms and particles, gravity conserves its power to trump all
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I feel gravity is one of the greatest puzzles of universe. The theory of graviton is still unproved. This is one force we have not been able to harness till now. I agree with the article that gravity is not constant all around but varies at the scale that you look at it from.

Is gravity real time and instantaneous? Light takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the Sun, but the gravitational pull of the sun on earth is real time.

Maybe someday we will be able to use the power of gravity and design anti gravity devices. We could also use gravity to warp spacetime and travel large distances in the universe, faster than light





www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Nice find, interesting article.
I must admit that when they started talking about string theory they were venturing into areas beyond my comprehension.
I'm sure it all makes sense when you look at it at the quantum level, but what does it all mean in the real world?


Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
Is gravity real time and instantaneous? Light takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the Sun, but the gravitational pull of the sun on earth is real time.


From my limited understanding (not involving string theory). I'd say yes, gravity is real time and instantaneous.
If you imagine space-time as a rubber sheet and place something heavy on it, the weight of that object will deform the sheet. Any objects near this deformation (gravity well) will be instantly attracted by the heavier object.

Therefore you can't compare light with gravity. Light are photons which travel unlike gravity which IMO is part of space-time itself, which only manifests itself in the presents of mass.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008nyLight takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the Sun, but the gravitational pull of the sun on earth is real time.


How did you figure out that it took Sunlight 8 minutes to reach earth, without having read it from the books, internet, etc?? With a wrist watch? Where you actually able to feel or see then compare with a clock that sunlight took 8 minutes to arrive?


I bet if we're asked the same question back in the 19th century about light. We'd give the same answer... That light is real time..



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Why is there gravity on the moon "1/6 of earth" and yet the moon does not rotate?

Am I a complete dumb ass or am I missing something really simple?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Theoretically Gravity radiates at the speed of light or real close to it.

Speed of gravity
en.wikipedia.org...

Experiments with Pulsars put the speed close to light, possibly slightly higher or lower. We won't know for sure until we have a better experiment.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 



I think you will find the moon does rotate


sorry for the one liner



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 


Gravity has nothing to do with the rotation. Gravity deals with Mass, and the attraction between two massive objects. And also the moon DOES rotate, it is just tidally locked with the earth, meaning as it travels around the earth, it also turns on it's axis, so that the same face is always pointing toward earth.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Theoretically Gravity radiates at the speed of light or real close to it.

Speed of gravity
en.wikipedia.org...


Ahh good old wiki to the rescue..

Well in that case I stand corrected, gravity is not instantaneous after all.

Thanks MikeboydUS



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I have to agree that the speed at which Gravity affects objects in the spacetime is Instantaneous. However, depending on the Scale, and other factors, that the observation takes place, differences in speed can be seen; they are but illusions.

I've been conducting experiments with regards to Gravity for three years and my conclusion is that the larger the Scale, the longer it Appears to take to affect the object. For example the World, not the Earth, was destroyed on November 5, 2005 but many of you don't yet realize you may have died that day. And at the very moment you see my words doesn't mean that you exist, you just think you exist.

I have been writing and writing and noone seems to want to understand.

Regarding the other factors that can mitigate the powerful force of Gravity: the objects that knew their destruction was imminent, yes some people knew, were able to construct Arks, if you will, to avoid the immediate destructive blast of the Gravitational pulse that was emitted on 11-5-2005, in hopes that they'd be able to capture and control the Gravity Pulse emitter, but this has failed and their destruction is imminent.

Back to the original topic...they were already destroyed, over three years ago, but because of the size of the oject and their Ark they've been able to make it appear that they still exist, even though they were certainly destroyed...Instantaneously.

Did that make sense?


FYI...I constructed a Throne and Gravity is the key component. I can't stop talking about it...I am so glad that it works.


I didn't explain...an Ark, like Noah's, seems to be an Anti-Gravity device. So, it appears that the so-called Scientists may be a little late to claim they built one.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Here is an interesting link about gravity and how it can be harnessed to travel vast distances in space by warping spacetime. Not sure about the credentials of the author though, or his theory

Gravity Warp Drive

The basic philosophy of this guy is that the strong nuclear force and gravity are one and the same. By amplifying this strong nuclear force, spacetime can be warped to travel light year distances in months



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I came up with the theory that the 4 forces are related in the following manner: The Gravity is the Man...Husband, Father and Son. Electromagnetism is the Woman...Wife and Mother. Weak and Strong Nuclear forces are the two daughters. One daughter, force, is "older" than the other.

Before reading the link above I didn't know which was believed to be the older, but by the authors assertion it is the Weak nuclear.

Now, from my observations, the Three forces are ultimately derivatives of Gravity. So, the Graviton and the Gluon are definitely not the same. However, the graviton and the gluon can be brought together as the first step in creating the device postulated by the author...a Warp drive. I also toyed with the notion that the Gluon, when brought together with the Graviton, mimicks its behavior. This is possibly the reason he suggested they may be the same. But they can be separated, at which point it is known that they are certainly NOT the same.

I believe that in the world to which you Warp using this particular device, the nature of Gravity is changed and becomes excessively violent ripping apart all matter. I am quite certain it is not a place you'd want to go.


PS...I don't think a Warp drive would take you somewhere else in the sense of travel from point A to point B, but instead it is travel in the sense of point A to point -A. The Warp drive would take you not a different place, but you'd experience the same place differently. Make Sense?

[edit on 17-3-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by expatwhite
 


I could be wrong but I believe the Moon orbits the Earth in the same sense as the Earth orbiting the Sun but does not rotate in the same sense as the Earth rotating and creating our day and night. This is the reason for the name "Dark Side of the Moon" and the reason why the "Man on the Moon" is always visible.


reply to post by huckfinn
 



As for Warp Drive, as I understand it as a life long trekkie space is warped by shrinking it in front of the ship and expanding it behind the ship so that the distance traveled is relatively smaller and shorter than it would be if the ship was it's original relative size to the surrounding space-time.

This is different from the folding of space as seen in Dune where the distance between point A and point B is folded until A and B occupy the same place, using this theory a spaceship need not move at all but has space bent around it.

This is different from a wormhole like effect where a ship physically travels through an express lane of sorts.

And all of these are different from faster than light travel or gravitational inversion which are basically traveling at tremendous speeds.

Sorry to go off topic but I couldn't resist taking about scifi stuff

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Shadowflux]

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Shadowflux]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I could be wrong but I believe the Moon orbits the Earth in the same sense as the Earth orbiting the Sun but does not rotate in the same sense as the Earth rotating and creating our day and night. This is the reason for the name "Dark Side of the Moon" and the reason why the "Man on the Moon" is always visible.


There is no dark side on the Moon, except at night. And of course the Album by Pink Floyd


There's a near-side and far-side, the near-side always faces earth.
So the Moon does have days & nights...



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by yizzel
 


Well, yeah lol, I didn't mean to imply that the far side of the moon is dark all the time. The "Man on the Moon" is also relative to the observer but that's just semantics



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join