3D Gravity "Thought experiment" (bubble gravity)

reply to post by davidgrouchy

So I'm a little thrown off by the desire for a 3D model of gravity. I watched the video and a couple of problems come to mind. The viscosity of the liquid would have to increase slightly the closer to the center it was. The surface tensions should be almost zero with the greatest tension being the very center. So I don't find the zero-g bubble to be particularly useful in this regard.

the idea is to try and design a teaching aid
we have a flat 2D model to "visualize" gravity and to explain the basics
i was hoping to stumble on a good way of visually representing what happens but in 3D

i realize trying to do it all in a bubble seperate from the galaxy makes no sence but i find the usual visual aid
lacking in depth and dimention

xploder

reply to post by davidgrouchy


cool pic
i do beleive that the further out you get the less "dense" the heliospherical gas gets
this has an optical effect on not only the density refractivity but also has relitivistic effects on the light itself,

the two combine to provide a shifting lense depending on your distence to center.
so the location inside the lense can have an effect on what is observed.

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
what do you think the source of gravity is?
or do you have a model refinment to add to the thought experiment?

These are my choices?

Hell I don't know. Gravity could be nothing more than the kick-off force of an entire light spectrum passing through an object. This presupposes that there is a frequency of light low and long enough to make a body the size of Jupiter transparent. In other words, ultra ultra +a lot more ultras, ultra low frequency light might be gravity.

But I doubt it as objects would have to weigh less in the shade than in full daylight.

On the other hand though, if the visible spectrum was only 6.66 x10^ minus eleventh, of the entire spectrum ...


David Grouchy

p.s. anyone recognize the gravitational constant there >.>

Originally posted by XPLodER
the idea is to try and design a teaching aid
we have a flat 2D model to "visualize" gravity and to explain the basics
i was hoping to stumble on a good way of visually representing what happens but in 3D

I see.
I find that the best way to teach gravity is to use fewer dimensions. The 1D approach. This is the fundamental premise of Newton's two body solution. The inverse square of the distance. Distance being a 1D measurement.

Note the the 2D sheet model that is mentioned in the opening post is useful for showing the interaction of 2 balls of different size, but it is still just a two body solution. One couldn't add in a third body orbiting the smaller ball and have it work.


Consider timestop 3:00 -3:55
Obviously this model won't work too well with a third body orbiting the smaller sphere.

Solving the three body problem is kind of a holy grail of astrophysics. A 3D model that could do this would be most valuable. But my intuition tells me it would have to show the past and the future along one axis.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


i have an incomplete idea using the triangle as the basis for finding the orbital center and rotational component for three bodies using a length of sides = mass ratios..............angle = vector change of direction........area = time for vector change between all three objects

the idea is to create a relevence between length of side and mass
angle and vector change
area and time for vector change between all three objects.

so the three objects will always make a triangle with changing side lengths three changing angles and variations to the area
as the objects rotate around each other there should be a mathmatical relationship between the objects that can be expressed in a triangle
the angles represent the vector change required at any given point in time
the sides represent the mass
the area represents time required to complete the change in vector




i cant find the relationship at the moment but i do think the answer is relating a triangle to the problem in a mathmatical sence

xploder

ok so after doing the math a triangle does not work very well
there seems to be a seconary cycle
almost random in nature
i will read up on euler to see what he thought
brb

xploder

ok so adding an elastic componet to the triangle so the sides viewed side on are eliptical and energy travels from pole to pole over all three objects
the elipticls are like a rubber band in that they streach and store potential kenetic energy
relitive amounts of streach are avaliable accross all three bodies but there is a finite amout of "streach" avaliable
in this manner a random pattern imerges that applies to the speed distence and orbital period for each body




in this way the total energy in the system can be at any point in the system
the center can move to the location were the most poteintial kenetic energy exists between the furtherst two bodies while allowing the third body to store potential energy in its least kenetic state of motion.

xploder

there is also the outflow of gases from the bodies if they are stars
the solar wind from spirals interacting cause a very caotic pattern
and provide the seperation energy required in a three sun problem
the three bodies if planets would not work

xp

been looking at the tendex lines and votex lines around black holes for a solution



which is a profile of a black hole "spiral"

a new way to look at warped space time LINK

if at the mass ceter of the three bodys there was such a tendex/vortex created by the mass and relitivistic motion around a moving point between the orbital path of the objects.

the gravity from all three objects "focus" together to form a votex with tendex lines and could account for annomolus behaviour

xploder

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by XPLodER
what do you think the source of gravity is?
or do you have a model refinment to add to the thought experiment?

These are my choices?

Hell I don't know. Gravity could be nothing more than the kick-off force of an entire light spectrum passing through an object. This presupposes that there is a frequency of light low and long enough to make a body the size of Jupiter transparent. In other words, ultra ultra +a lot more ultras, ultra low frequency light might be gravity.

But I doubt it as objects would have to weigh less in the shade than in full daylight.

On the other hand though, if the visible spectrum was only 6.66 x10^ minus eleventh, of the entire spectrum ...

David Grouchy

p.s. anyone recognize the gravitational constant there >.>

edit on 10-5-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

here is an interesting read
Epic Finding: A Constant of Nature May Vary in Different Parts of the Universe

link HERE

The core finding of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter. A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyze the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago, the value of alpha was very slightly smaller than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

Now Webb's colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analyzed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the Universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

xploder