Question about gravity.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

A vacuum does not cancel out gravity, it only takes other matter and the atmosphere out of the equation, producing zero drag. Gravity would be the only force acting on it, but it would still act on it.

lets say we construct a perfect, absolute contained vacuum in interstellar space,, and the only thing that is in the vacuum is a 10kg mass........ the mass is magnetic,,.,, and outside of the vacuum we have magnets,.,.,. would the magnets have an effect on the mass? if so,, would their effects cause our perfect, absolute vacuum to no longer be a perfect vacuum ( barring the 10kg mass in the vacuum in the first place)?

p.s. i know this is different then gravity...

Again, you are not understanding what a vacuum is...

i can understand that man cannot create what a vacuum is,,,, but i understand a theoretical perfect vacuum would have no energy,matter,particles in it... which i figured is what the OP was hinting at in his OP

reply to post by ImaFungi

in a vacuum,, with no energy,, no matter,, no particles,, in a pure vacuum with nothing but nothing,,,, what gravity is effecting ,, one single object,, in the vacuum?

The gravity of the entire mass of the Earth surrounding the tube.

ETA: I see the Chiten already got that one too but still that apparently can't be mentioned enough.

Why is there this thought that a vacuum insulates from gravity?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

in a vacuum,, with no energy,, no matter,, no particles,, in a pure vacuum with nothing but nothing,,,, what gravity is effecting ,, one single object,, in the vacuum?

The gravity of the entire mass of the Earth surrounding the tube.

ETA: I see the Chiten already got that one too but still that apparently can't be mentioned enough.

Why is there this thought that a vacuum insulates from gravity?

edit on 4-11-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

im not sure,, just wondering about it.....

i think my problem with understanding is that,,, a vacuum means nothing,,, no contents,,, how can the force of gravity effect something within a volume with no forces present? once the force of gravity effects the vacuum it self or an item within the vacuum,, it is no longer a vacuum is it?

reply to post by ImaFungi

i think my problem with understanding is that,,, a vacuum means nothing,,, no contents

No matter.

Vacuum is space that is empty of matter.
en.wikipedia.org...

how can the force of gravity effect something within a volume with no forces present?

The mass of the Earth and the mass in the tube are attracted to each other by what we call gravity. The vacuum is a non-issue with respect to gravity as gravity is not matter. Light travels through a vacuum and magnets of sufficient strength will attract each other when separated by a vacuum. Magnetism is a force as is gravity.

Why would it no longer be a vacuum?

There is NOWHERE in the definition of vacuum that says it's the absence of forces. Gravity is EVERYWHERE to one extent or another. There is no getting away from it but that doesn't mean space isn't a vacuum.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

i think my problem with understanding is that,,, a vacuum means nothing,,, no contents

No matter.

Vacuum is space that is empty of matter.
en.wikipedia.org...

how can the force of gravity effect something within a volume with no forces present?

The mass of the Earth and the mass in the tube are attracted to each other by what we call gravity. The vacuum is a non-issue with respect to gravity as gravity is not matter. Light travels through a vacuum and magnets of sufficient strength will attract each other when separated by a vacuum. Magnetism is a force as is gravity.

"vacuum is space that is empty of matter"

ok,, what is space then? no matter,, no mass, no gravity? ,,,

are forces nonmaterial? non energetic?

what causes the masses to attract? are all atoms attracted to one another? why dont the earth and other planets collide into the sun,, if they are attracted to one another?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Equilibrium is the state of most things in the uninverse. All of the forces balance out except for the forces causing motion or change.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Equilibrium is the state of most things in the uninverse. All of the forces balance out except for the forces causing motion or change.

what do you mean balance out? the result of all the forces and energy,, is the objective universe at all times,, its interesting it is exactly as it is,,, its shapes and functions,, its size and duration,,

can you imagine what non equilibrium would appear as? and if it were possible,, would it not be long until it was brought back into the order, under law?

are all the laws of physics/the universe logical? they follow strict cause and effects,, they make sense... for what energy is at its most infinitesimal, does it surprise you that the macro formations of the universe came out the way they did,, or are possible? could the same quantum energy react with itself in different ways making different laws? or is it an inherent trait of the most primal constituents of universe, that they behave in the strict manner they do and did what they did at the start of universe?

reply to post by ImaFungi


There is a big difference between a vacuum in a chamber and the vacuum of space.

The vacuum of space is always neutral. A vacuum in a chamber is always negative no matter how pure it is.

A particle surrounded by neutral vacuum of space will always act differently than a particle in a negative vacuum chamber.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

There is a big difference between a vacuum in a chamber and the vacuum of space.

The vacuum of space is always neutral. A vacuum in a chamber is always negative no matter how pure it is.

A particle surrounded by neutral vacuum of space will always act differently than a particle in a negative vacuum chamber.

I can't believe this is still going!

There is no such thing as a negative vacuum. A vacuum is a space with nothing in it, no gas particles whatsoever. How can you get less than nothing? Please give up now you are making yourself look exceedingly stupid.

reply to post by fiftyfifty


That is because you don't know what a vacuum is. You don't even know the difference between a absolute neutral space compare to a absolute vacuum.

And i probably have to go on for a very long time. Because you people take so long to understand.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

That is because you don't know what a vacuum is. You don't even know the difference between a absolute neutral space compare to a absolute vacuum.

And i probably have to go on for a very long time. Because you people take so long to understand.

Then please enlighten me. What is the difference between neutral space and absolute vacuum? If you know this stuff, you won't have any problem explaining in an adult manner.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

That is because you don't know what a vacuum is. You don't even know the difference between a absolute neutral space compare to a absolute vacuum.

And i probably have to go on for a very long time. Because you people take so long to understand.

ummmm are you arguing with yourself now because that's pretty much what we've been telling you for 7 or 8 pages now.....

YOU, Spy66, do not know what a vacuum is and that's one of the underlying problems here.

I don't think the science forum is for you. However, I'm pretty sure the UFO forum would welcome you with open arms. You would fit in very well in that one.... sociologically speaking...

Maybe it should be added that even though theoretically a vacuum is absolute void of matter, in reality this is not obtainable in a lab, nor is it so in outer space. The highest grade vacuum chamber can reduce to around 100 particles per cm³, and outer space in an ideal situation contains only a few hydrogen atoms per m³. Even when a "perfect" vacuum could somehow be reached, particles can still pop into and out of existence, according to quantum mechanics.

Regardless of vacuum or no vacuum, a vacuum has no effect on gravity.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Yes, I agree.

Should have maybe added that to my post in the first place.

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Yes, I agree.

Should have maybe added that to my post in the first place.

No prob, it was to him, not you. It's clear from your post that you understood that

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

A vacuum does not cancel out gravity, it only takes other matter and the atmosphere out of the equation, producing zero drag. Gravity would be the only force acting on it, but it would still act on it.

in a vacuum,, with no energy,, no matter,, no particles,, in a pure vacuum with nothing but nothing,,,, what gravity is effecting ,, one single object,, in the vacuum?

A vacuum is an absence of macro scale matter, not energy.

There can be various energies in a vacuum.

Vacuums also contain virtual particles which appear and disappear randomly, but only at a quantum scale. This happens because at that small size, we can only speak about the probabilities of particles and their qualities.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

That is because you don't know what a vacuum is. You don't even know the difference between a absolute neutral space compare to a absolute vacuum.

And i probably have to go on for a very long time. Because you people take so long to understand.

What??

Is one a Hoover and the other a Dyson or something?

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

That is because you don't know what a vacuum is. You don't even know the difference between a absolute neutral space compare to a absolute vacuum.

And i probably have to go on for a very long time. Because you people take so long to understand.

What??

Is one a Hoover and the other a Dyson or something?

I can't tell you how many times that thought has gone through my head reading what a couple of these guys post!