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.

 

Question about gravity.

page: 28
6
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

This is why I said it is at the center point of Mass. It is only now after my reply that you bring up your statement...."if the mass is equally distributed"...or something to that effect. This is why I replied that your answer that the Geometric center point of a Celestial Body is the Center of Gravity...WAS INCORRECT.

Hey...I make mistakes also and at least I will admit them...I had hoped you would be the same.

Not only is a Celestial Body something that rarely has Mass equally distributed....especially in the case of Hard Rocky Planets or Moons...but in the case of Many Planetoids where some exist in PEANUT like shapes...there are more than One center of Gravity.
Split Infinity




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I find your endless Pin Pricks that I guess you believe are jabs ENDLESSLY AMUSING! LOL! You know...you made a mistake. Big Deal! EVERYONE including myself makes mistakes. I had only hoped that you were Man enough to admit them.

It was only AFTER my reply that contradicted your statement where you said that...The center of Gravity in a Celestial Body can be found by calculating it's Center Point Geometrically. THIS IS 100% WRONG. I replied to you and told you it was wrong and ONLY THEN did you reply that what you said was only true if the Celestial Bodies Material Makeup must be the same through out the Body for your statement to be true.

Why not just admit you were wrong? A celestial Body and in particular Rocky Planets ARE NEVER constructed with the same material of Mass through out the Body. In fact in Peanut Shaped Planetoids there are even TWO CENTER OF GRAVITY POINTS.

I think you would do yourself a favor and just be honest rather than constantly attempting to COVER YOU TRACKS when you make a mistake. Hey! I made a mistake on the spelling of a word and I admitted it. It wasn't hard to do and I would rather be honest than allow myself to become what you have become...a person that anyone here can see is more interested in EGO and Personal Gain than a person who is interested in working and listening to others in the hopes that ALL may learn something.

I find it amusing...but I should find it TRAGIC. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

This is why I said it is at the center point of Mass. It is only now after my reply that you bring up your statement...."if the mass is equally distributed"...or something to that effect. This is why I replied that your answer that the Geometric center point of a Celestial Body is the Center of Gravity...WAS INCORRECT.

Hey...I make mistakes also and at least I will admit them...I had hoped you would be the same.

Not only is a Celestial Body something that rarely has Mass equally distributed....especially in the case of Hard Rocky Planets or Moons...but in the case of Many Planetoids where some exist in PEANUT like shapes...there are more than One center of Gravity.
Split Infinity



It's still the centroid, based on the mass specs of the solid... If the mass is equally distributed, the mass centroid and the "geometric" (as you are referring to it) are the same, but centroid doesn't automatically imply the "outline" of the shape.
If the mass isn't equally distributed, then the mass centroid would have to be calculated depending on the densities of the mass that make it up, but you were claiming it couldn't be determined at all, which is incorrect.

It doesn't matter if you are calculating the centroid dependent on the mass or the geometry of the object, both can be accomplished. It's true that they aren't always the same point, but it isn't true that it's not able to be calculated.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


You still have not learned? I never stated what you just replied I stated. Why not just say...Oh...your right, I forgot about Density of Mass through out the Celestial Body.

If you had just done that...you would earn respect...by continuing your attempt to COVER YOUR TRACKS...you are not doing yourself any favors. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


You still have not learned? I never stated what you just replied I stated. Why not just say...Oh...your right, I forgot about Density of Mass through out the Celestial Body.

If you had just done that...you would earn respect...by continuing your attempt to COVER YOUR TRACKS...you are not doing yourself any favors. Split Infinity





You said it couldn't be calculated, it CAN be calculated.... you're trying to turn the conversation around somehow to try to save face that you lost long, long, long ago...

here, this may help




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Please PROVE that I stated that. The only thing that could even be considered close to what you are saying I said is my statement that PHYSICAL LAWS BREAK DOWN IN A BLACK HOLE.

Other than that you will have to actually PROVE I SAID WHAT YOU SAY I SAID...because I DID NOT.

Again...why is it so hard for you to admit you made a mistake? Are you trying to compensate for something you lack? I just don't understand why anyone would want other to see them in the light you are putting yourself in?

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 

It is the Reality that Celestial Objects exist at all rather than a Universe filled with Particles that are bouncing off one another that Gravity shows it's Special Effects. Sure we can use equations to figure out an Objects rate of fall and how much a quantity of Mass would weigh on another Planet that is either Lessor or Greater in Mass than Earth but when it comes to the actual Center of a Gravity Well...our known Physical Laws break down.
Split Infinity



No... they don't....

It is quite easy to find the centroid of any three dimensional object using integrals or even deconstructive geometry. The center of gravity would be located at the centroid.
It's quite easy for a 2-dimensional triangle (vertex connected to the midpoint of the opposite side), but becomes a bit more difficult, but not at all impossible for 3 dimensional objects.

....google it if you want to know more.


Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

Actually...the center of Gravity would be located at the center of Mass not the Geometry of any object or even group of objects. Split Infinity


edit on 5-11-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


As I said...My statement has nothing to do with FINDING THE LOCATION OF THE CENTER POINT OF A GRAVITY WELL...as you have been trying to state.

You have proved me correct and proved that you seem to be willing to STRETCH to any lengths to prevent yourself from admitting a MISTAKE. Here...I will try to help you FONZI...you were wrrr....WRROO....WROOOO...WRONG!

See? Not so hard is it? Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 

Actually...the center of Gravity would be located at the center of Mass not the Geometry of any object or even group of objects. Split Infinity


edit on 5-11-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

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.





so does space at a quantum scale ( and macro scale) have a non particle/non energetic... composition?

where there are no particles,, no virtual particles,, what is there?

say we make a perfect vacuum with no particles or virtual particles,,, but like you say particles "appear",,, where is it suppose they come from? through the walls of the vacuums container? through infinitesimal singularities of quantum space -time soup?

a vacuum is not void of energy?,,,,, so a vacuum does not always = a vacuum? because there can be a vacuum with this energy,, and a vacuum with that energy,,, what would a hypothetical perfect vacuum be like? what would be its qualities? and level of energy?

what are virtual particles? where do they come from? what are they made of? do they have energy? do they have mass?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

so does space at a quantum scale ( and macro scale) have a non particle/non energetic... composition?

where there are no particles,, no virtual particles,, what is there?

say we make a perfect vacuum with no particles or virtual particles,,, but like you say particles "appear",,, where is it suppose they come from? through the walls of the vacuums container? through infinitesimal singularities of quantum space -time soup?

a vacuum is not void of energy?,,,,, so a vacuum does not always = a vacuum? because there can be a vacuum with this energy,, and a vacuum with that energy,,, what would a hypothetical perfect vacuum be like? what would be its qualities? and level of energy?

what are virtual particles? where do they come from? what are they made of? do they have energy? do they have mass?



All really quite good questions!

Not quantum soup but foam. When you look at the spread of galaxies (like from the Hubble Deep Field) one of the things you notice is that it looks a bit like the bubbles in soap suds. This is believed to be a structure left over from the singularity just after the big bang. In this singularity, all matter and energy that existed was overlaid and in physical contact with all other matter and energy. As it expanded it shaped into a foam with bubble like boundaries and voids. The expansion of the universe then extended this pattern out to the cosmic scales we see today.

Your question about a void without even virtual particles or energies is actually a really good one. For the Higgs field to exist as the thing that gives mass, it requires that the Higgs field be all pervasive, everywhere (or otherwise stuff would fall off the edge of physics when it left the end of the Higgs Field, becoming mass-less). We really don't know of any such space or what its real physics may be.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ImaFungi

so does space at a quantum scale ( and macro scale) have a non particle/non energetic... composition?

where there are no particles,, no virtual particles,, what is there?

say we make a perfect vacuum with no particles or virtual particles,,, but like you say particles "appear",,, where is it suppose they come from? through the walls of the vacuums container? through infinitesimal singularities of quantum space -time soup?

a vacuum is not void of energy?,,,,, so a vacuum does not always = a vacuum? because there can be a vacuum with this energy,, and a vacuum with that energy,,, what would a hypothetical perfect vacuum be like? what would be its qualities? and level of energy?

what are virtual particles? where do they come from? what are they made of? do they have energy? do they have mass?



All really quite good questions!

Not quantum soup but foam. When you look at the spread of galaxies (like from the Hubble Deep Field) one of the things you notice is that it looks a bit like the bubbles in soap suds. This is believed to be a structure left over from the singularity just after the big bang. In this singularity, all matter and energy that existed was overlaid and in physical contact with all other matter and energy. As it expanded it shaped into a foam with bubble like boundaries and voids. The expansion of the universe then extended this pattern out to the cosmic scales we see today.

Your question about a void without even virtual particles or energies is actually a really good one. For the Higgs field to exist as the thing that gives mass, it requires that the Higgs field be all pervasive, everywhere (or otherwise stuff would fall off the edge of physics when it left the end of the Higgs Field, becoming mass-less). We really don't know of any such space or what its real physics may be.



ok so the concepts of the higgs field and other fields being all pervasive,,, is an excuse for why virtual particles pop into existence?

are all these fields physical phenomena and truly structured and connected? does that pervasive connection have anything to do with quantum entanglement? like saying a field is an entangled type of particle potential?

what do physicists think the universe is? what do they think the most fundamental constituents of the universe being quantum mechanical wave-particles means? why is there so much of it? why not a quinsfrillionillion times smaller or larger amount of "energy/particles"?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
 

ok so the concepts of the higgs field and other fields being all pervasive,,, is an excuse for why virtual particles pop into existence?

are all these fields physical phenomena and truly structured and connected? does that pervasive connection have anything to do with quantum entanglement? like saying a field is an entangled type of particle potential?

what do physicists think the universe is? what do they think the most fundamental constituents of the universe being quantum mechanical wave-particles means? why is there so much of it? why not a quinsfrillionillion times smaller or larger amount of "energy/particles"?


No, sorry I misled you there (I have a migraine and sometimes it renders my clearest prose down to word-salad), the excuse for virtual particles is their quantum fuzziness. We can't say definitely if they are there, or not. We can only say that there is a low probability of a particle being there at any particular moment. This allows for particles to be existent out of nothingness. Although this seems absurd and counter-intuitive, we have run a number of experiments that seem to prove the existence of virtual particles at very tiny scales. We also have the example of Hawking Radiation being produced just outside of the Schwartzchild Radius around Black Holes (In this case, one of a pair of virtual particles falls into the Black Hole while the other doesn't and so while the Black Hole eats matter, it also creates matter out of nothingness too). The fact that we don't see the creation of matter out of nothing in the day to day world means that the sum total of all energies and charges of these virtual particles must be zero. A theory as to why this might be, is called Supersymmetry, which you can look up on Wikipedia.

As to why and what broke symmetry to allow our universe of matter, instead of zeroing it out to nothing, and why it also didn't go too far and create infinities, there are several theories but few are rigorous from a Scientific standpoint. We can't exactly go back and recreate the universe to see it happening that's why we keep smashing this one up in colliders, just to see if we can determine the building blocks.

I gave the example of the Higgs field to show that we have only come in a great circle, intellectually. In Columbus's time, people thought that you might fall off the edge of the world if you sailed away too far. We now are starting to find questions which imply sailing off the edge of the universe! Physicists are unsure of what the universe is and perhaps we will never answer all questions. Every new answer seems to reveal a hundred new questions. But you can sit back and "enjoy the ocean cruise". I do.


edit on 5/11/2012 by chr0naut because: Need more meds & a good lie down



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


My sympathies for the word-salad. Probably it helps you, personally, remember it. I think mine do. Not every time.

Maybe gravity is interdimentional inertia. Our whole universe is moving in one direction, that is to say along a dimention supersetted and "perpendicular " to the normal three spacial dimentions.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 

I´ve brought it up before in another thread and I want to state I´m not affiliated in any way, but if you sport that idea, like I do, you should read the book "Tertium Organum" by P.D. Ouspensky. It´s a brilliant journey through this very philosophy. The book can be downloaded for free in various formats here.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Project Gutenberg offers almost every book written before 1900 as a downloadable text file. Some percentage of the books can be downloaded in the Kindle format and such.

Thanks for the book. I guess the future belongs to those who can use graphic symbolism to describe reality without recourse to 3 dimentional mental reflexes.

Kind of like when beings first evolved eyes, and got past following or avoiding a chemical concentration gradient as the only perception of the outside world.

A scientist on C-SPAN observed that 3-D is the minimum number of dimentions required to describe something going through something else without separating it into smaller pieces. Biologists note Bilateral symmetry alot. Many things are close to symmetry but not exactly symmetrical to humans, or in reality maybe. But why of all possible arraingements, are many things so close to symmetry? I read Richard Feynman mention that once. His observation not mine.


edit on 9-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
In my opinion you are both wrong, however I do not subscribe to the standard model. I use the radiant pressure model, which is divergent with modern theory and it is especially evident with respect to gravity. The rest of my reply is made in reference to this theory.

Firstly, gravitation effects are near instantaneous - this is a fact that is non controversial for physicists - but is generally completely unknown for most lay persons. In other words, if gravity is caused by particle interaction or radiation it does not conform to general relativity - this is generally hidden from the lay person because it is an inconvenient truth.

The model I subscribe to says that gravity is a particular frequency of the fundamental force (that comprises everything in the universe). The fundamental force is not energy or matter, it is the force that creates matter and energy and is the cause of the forces, gravity, electrostatic and nuclear forces. This force resides in the vacuum and inside all matter - it is near infinite in magnitude, frequency, velocity and elasticity and is in isotropic equilibrium in free space.

Matter ('particles') absorb certain frequencies associated with gravity (and other frequencies also) , and in doing so it is imparted mass and inertia. As they absorb some frequencies, they also emit different frequencies (caused by wave collapse at the particles center). Obviously radiant particles do not absorb gravitational frequencies.


In this theory, all particles are structurally identical - they are a spiral in a plane (though they have 3D topographical structure, its convenient to say they reside in a plane), and curve inwards following a phi ratio. Prime radiation is trapped by the spiral, the outer spiral is an open curve - the aperture and the energy required to hold the maximum aperture create the particle properties. As the waves curve inwards, as they collapse at the center they form new waves at normals to the plane of rotation - in the case of super particles, which we might find in the center of planets, stars and galaxies - these particles have massive aperture and collect and convert a wide range of frequencies of the prime force.

For a mental model, they can be assumed to be like vortices, or whirlpools in a fluid medium. If they manage to come into equilibrium, they are stable.

Around a massive body there is an area of shadow, where the radiation is absorbed (by its particles) - this causes an imbalance of the force, which results in acceleration. The surface of the earth is shielded from gravitational radiation coming from the far side of the planet, so there is more gravitational radiation coming from above - which pushes us down onto the surface.

Inside the earth is an energetic object (in my view this is a 'super' particle - however it may be described as a black hole by some), which is the cause of the earths magnetic field. This object completely traps a wide range of frequencies of the prime force, it is then spun inwards and the partial waves collapse resulting in emissions of new frequencies at a normal to the plane of rotation (ie it emits radiation out of the north and south poles).

If you removed the massive particle from the center of the earth, the earths gravity would decrease slightly, because unlike the rest of the planet which allows some of the gravity radiation through - this object is completely black - that is, is absorbs all gravitational radiation. However, dimensionally it is relatively small.

So, if you took it out - then there would be the cavity left by its removal -plus a larger cavity which exists around it filled with plasma and hot gases. If you let them cool -and cut your theoretical hole through the center - then your weight would fall and oscillate near the earths center until it came to rest there.

I am not going to go through the full details of the radiant pressure model of gravity, but you could find some online sources. This is by far the best model to describe the nature of particles, energy, matter and forces - it also provides a unified theory for all forces.

One other thing, it proposes that our own universe occupies a sliver of frequencies, and that higher and lower frequency universes are possible - we may see some effects from other frequency universes due to resonance - also large disturbances may impact across multiple frequencies - such as super nova's or even nuclear weapons.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Firstly, gravitation effects are near instantaneous - this is a fact that is non controversial for physicists - but is generally completely unknown for most lay persons. In other words, if gravity is caused by particle interaction or radiation it does not conform to general relativity - this is generally hidden from the lay person because it is an inconvenient truth.


This is not true. Gravity travels at the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 10/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Firstly, gravitation effects are near instantaneous - this is a fact that is non controversial for physicists - but is generally completely unknown for most lay persons. In other words, if gravity is caused by particle interaction or radiation it does not conform to general relativity - this is generally hidden from the lay person because it is an inconvenient truth.


This is not true. Gravity travels at the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 10/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Incorrect - the effect of gravity is almost instantaneous - you need to read your link more carefully. As I said - this isn't something advertised.

From your wiki link "However, in the case of two gravitoelectrically interacting particle ensembles, such as two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, each body feels a force which is directed at the instantaneous position of the other body, without a speed-of-light delay."

This is simply theoretical acrobatics designed to try and maintain a theory which is patently false - ie Special, and General relativity. This idea that 'this only applies between gravity wells moving at constant velocity' is a fabrication purely on inspection.


Special relativity should be replaced by Lorentz Relativity if it wants to have any credibility - as there is very obviously a loss of absolute velocity between two receding frames - light has preferred frames, those of gravity wells. General relativity is broken by gravity and electrostatic forces at a minimum, and very likely by the nuclear force also.

Einstein's fame, his mystique and his aura of authority have been very carefully crafted in order to prevent people seeing some very obvious things, and then drawing some very simple conclusions. The vacuum is most definitely not empty, and it is jam packed full of energy which we can access - ie. we do not need oil.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Incorrect - the effect of gravity is almost instantaneous - you need to read your link more carefully. As I said - this isn't something advertised.


Its nothing new to me. It is not exactly advertised, but it is also not hidden. The effect is not instantaneous, it travels at the speed of light. It just points to a position where the gravitating body would be if it continues with constant speed.



This is simply theoretical acrobatics designed to try and maintain a theory which is patently false - ie Special, and General relativity. This idea that 'this only applies between gravity wells moving at constant velocity' is a fabrication purely on inspection.


Id like to see some evidence of this bold claim.
edit on 10/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join