Understanding Gravity (and more)

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


If you were in say your bed room and were to fluff the bed spread...dust particles would be thrown into the air. These particles would be carried for a time on the room airs movement in the room. If you were to leave the room and the room was sealed from any exterior air either incoming or out going...the dust would settle.

The dust is relatively light so it will float for a time once placed into motion but Earths Gravity will eventually allow them to settle. What is at work here that allows these light weight particles to float for a time if Bouyancy. Since the dust particles are tiny in their amount of mass as well as are of a geometric design that allows for that mass to be spread out upon the air column...almost like a snowflake...the dust can stay afloat for some time.

If the dust particle was to be compressed into say a perfect solid sphere of the same mass...the dust particle would drop at a much faster rate due to the lessoning of area that the now sphere would have and thus not be able to spread it's mass over a larger area over the air column.

Gravity is in reality an Expression of One Dimensionality. Gravity the effect of an expression of One Dimensionality created by the existence of any amount of Mass in our Universal Space/Time. Mass creates this expression and Warps Space/Time inward to the Mass.

Although most people believe Gravity is a Force and has even been labeled as THE WEAK FORCE and is taught at the basic levels of understanding in both grade school and lower levels of University and College...Gravity is in fact....NOT A FORCE. The definition of a Force is the INTERACTION OF QUANTUM FIELDS. Gravity does neither create or is created by such a field.

Gravity is simple Space/Time Geometry and effects both particles of Mass as well as Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of Energy such as Photons. A Force cannot effect Photons as Gravity can as the Ultimate expression of Gravity...a SINGULARITY...which is what a Black Hole is...will create such a warpature of Space/Time that passing light or Photons can be caught within the warpature that is the expression of One Dimensionality and directed into the singularity or Black Hole to never be released. A Force cannot do this either.

For some reason some on this board have stated that Electromagnetics is responsible for Gravity. This is BEYOND STUPID. The simplist way to disprove this is to understand that an Electromagneted Field cannot place a wooden spoon into motion. Gravity however can.

Split Infinity




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Well, after thinking about this all day all I know is gravity owe's me a new ice-cream.


I do like this theory though. My education is quite limited, I did study Engineering at university (a general first year after which you could choose your path, be it Electrical, Civil, Chemical or Astronomical). So we went over the basics. I loved the new things put forth, but despised my feeble brain which struggled with the maths. although I did pass first year, I knew when to cut my losses. (Also, got a chick preggers which changes the landscape of your life verrrryyyy quickly).

So, 15 odd years or so have passed, and I'm lucky to remember the word gravity! However, I like the fact that it's not quite given up all its mysteries. I'm sure if a supreme creator came up with it all she'd be sitting there watching our pathetic meat cells trying to figure out this doozy. But, I think I like the idea that something somewhere just went horribly wrong, then KaPow, Big Bang in your face universe.

Which brings me to, (remember, feeble uni drop out here), just moments before the Large Disruption she let's say walked out of a room, but bumped the super tiny, rather heavy everything, and it fell over.
This "wind" before time/universe/lady who owe's me a knew ice cream/whatever, would it have been in place? If so, I can only seem to imagine it being an imaginary vessel, filled to an impossible pressure, with the everything right in the middle. There I can see this windy gravity kind of working.

But, then the KaPow happens, the impossible pressure vessel explodes, there's a right mess everywhere as it races to expand away. If the pressure wind gravity has left the vessel, it can't be working now can it? Would not the wind only be expanding outwards?

My head hurts, and is nowhere near content without ice-cream.

(edit) If I had a universe at time frame zero in a handy little box in front of me, what would happen? Would the wind then become blocked on one side, and I'd race away at light speed...? No wait, never mind, too many tangents.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2013 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Qumulys
 


This "wind" before time, would it have been in place?

Yes. Maybe. The wind probably only came into existence later, though, after that initial expansion; otherwise... well, think about it. If all the matter in the universe were compressed into a single singularity, doesn't that make it a super-massive black hole? Do black holes ever explode? No; quite the opposite, they implode, constantly. So if the wind was there before the Big Bang, compressing all that matter into a tiny nugget, or even if the opposite is true and that ball of matter was pulling itself together, there's nothing that could've made it go bang. Expansion would never have started. So how did expansion start? And how did it proceed for a while at faster than light-speed, and then the laws of physics changed so black holes could form without exploding? It's like gravity didn't exist at all for some time before and after the Big Bang. And I have no idea what to do with that.

I guess there's nothing else for it; I'll have to sit down with Joao Magueijo and have a little chat...

Oh, and, the expanding ball of matter isn't "the universe." It's just a thing in the universe. The wind didn't explode outwards with expansion; it's always (after the initial expansion, at least) filled the entirety of empty space into which the matter is expanding. That, or the "repulsional gravity" theory is fundamentally flawed somehow. But "attractional gravity" has its problems, too.


(edit) If I had a universe at time frame zero in a handy little box in front of me, what would happen? Would the wind then become blocked on one side, and I'd race away at light speed...?

The wind would be blocked by that huge amount of mass, and you'd speed right into the box, pushed by the imbalance of wind from the other direction. Very hard. Just like any other black hole.
edit on 1/20/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Edited to address edit.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


By WIND...are you talking about the accelerated expansion of the Universe as Galaxies are not only speeding away from each other they are also speeding up.

This action has been explained as the effect of Dark Energy upon our Universe.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
 

By WIND...are you talking about the accelerated expansion of the Universe as Galaxies are not only speeding away from each other they are also speeding up.

This action has been explained as the effect of Dark Energy upon our Universe.

Theoretically explained, yes. It's far from proven. Dark Energy is just as valid a theory as repulsional gravity wind.

And by "wind," I mean that the vacuum energy is exerting gravitational forces by "blowing" a mass-repulsing energy (the metaphorical wind) in every direction, uniformly and spherically, from everywhere except the points in space that are actually occupied by truly solid matter (strings) at any given moment. Inertia, the resistance to changes in motion, is - actually, it might be the same thing as gravity. To move an object at full-rest equilibrium, you have to apply enough force to overcome its inertia (the wind hitting it from the direction in which you push it). So inertia and gravity are caused by the same force in this theory - the work performed by the wind hitting the object. I wish I could draw what I see in my head...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


Your entire post sounds a lot like Le Sage's theory of gravitation--just saying--with particles replaced with wind.

For anyone who is interested: en.wikipedia.org...

I'm way too tired to actually write about it.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Static electricity could certainly move a wooden spoon.

On another note; op have you considered center mass; in relation to the concept of wind gravity?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by darkmistandtrees
 

It is very similar, yes. They didn't know about vacuum energy way back then, though; I wonder if anyone's ever re-evaluated it in a wave context rather than particles. Pretty sure nobody's tried applying the concept to anything but gravity before, though...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


Hold on now!

Gravity is NOT the same thing as inertia.

Inertia is any object or amount of Matter that is in motion by any reason and the amount of Kinetic Energy that Mass has obtained in being in motion.

F=MA or Force = Mass X Acceleration.

Inertia is the amount of potential Kinetic Force that is achieved from Mass X Acceleration. There are also calculations that take into account vectored and curved travel of a mass under acceleration.

But Inertia is not Gravity.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TorridGal

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by TorridGal
Objects in space are suspended in space by space, which allows for the free fall of orbiting bodies, but more importantly it explains why they do not fall 'straight down' due to their weight. In essence - they weigh nothing.

Exactly. "Equilibrium," when all forces acting on that body from every direction are in perfect balance. Decrease the amount of force pushing it from any one direction, and it will start moving in that same direction. I never said Einstein was wrong; I just said he didn't take the theory far enough.


Isn't that precisely what happens at the center of the earth, or any other heavenly body with respect to gravitation?
The forces are neutralized, so to speak, contributing to the notion of weightlessness of which I speak. "As above so below" = "As within, so without."


The largest problem I see is that most people are wildly ignorant of the effect of scale (size) on relative perception. Specifically in this case, how do you define "the center" of an object as large as the Earth? It's easy to convince yourself that there is some impossibly tiny theoretical "point" in the center of Earth where gravity collapses neatly on itself from all directions simultaneously before disappearing off to wherever it gets off to when it reaches this invisible center, but there's really no reason to believe to this to be the case, and indeed much reason to reject such a notion outright. In the case of an object the size of a grapefruit, the absolute center becomes difficult if not impossible to determine to a high degree of accuracy. For an object the size of Earth, it becomes an exercise in lunacy to define the center as being anything other than a range which itself is absolutely massive in comparison to our physical bodies. The simple truth is that the entire concept of a "point" has been lost in modern math. A point is never a point, but rather a range with a specific boundary determined exclusively by the size of the object in question. The center of a particular atom may be a nucleus, but it's not accurate to describe the center of a grapefruit as being the nucleus of any particular atom contained within it, no matter how hard anyone wants it to be so.

Also, whatever point/range you define as being the "center of Earth" is based on perspective and locality. The molten core (actually it's frozen, as is evidenced by the ice caps on all the terrestrial planets among other things, but that's a topic for another day) of Earth is a popular candidate for the "center" of Earth, but that's really only accurate from an extremely limited perspective where Earth is removed from all possible context. For instance, if you acknowledge that Earth orbits the sun, then you are also acknowledging that Earth is unable to be removed from that particular bit of context. Imagining the Earth as some isolated orb which exists independent of its surrounding celestial bodies is not only unhelpful, it's actively detrimental to ones understanding of fundamental mathematics. It raises the question of should the center be measured by the stationary Earth at an instant in time (the "molten" core we think of as being in the center) or rather by the full breadth of space Earth takes up...which is the distance contained in its orbit around the sun. This places the "point" which represents the center of Earth as the entire sun itself.

It all comes down to how one defines location in relation to the concept of "here". Does "here" describe a specific location ON earth, or the whole planet Earth. If it means the WHOLE Earth, then the center can only lie at the point of orbit, which is the Sun. Only when viewed from a specific location ON Earth can Earth's center be said to be at the "molten" core. "What lies on the other side of the center of Earth -- Australia or 6 months ago/from now?" Most people blindly regurgitate the first answer without devoting an instant of thought to the question, but that's because they've been taught from birth that Earth is an individual unit rather than a tiny cog in a much larger machine (the Sun) upon which it is ENTIRELY dependent.

The Sun faces a similar dilemma when placed into galactic context as does the galaxy when measured on the universal scale and soforth. The concept is known as relativity for a reason. The relationship being described is relative to A specific starting point, not THE smallest possible point. The more accurate the measurement over a large stretch of space, the less accurate the measurement actually is. Accuracy and size share an inverse relationship with location. The smaller something is, the larger the degree of accuracy to which it can be measured. This may seem an obvious concept, but its habitually overlooked in the case of gravity.

Great thread by the way OP. All eyes are on you.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
 

Static electricity could certainly move a wooden spoon.

So can electromagnets... as long as there's water in it. They've levitated frogs and mice (without hurting them) using really-strong superconducting magnets thanks to the diamagnetic effect. Wanna see?


On another note; op have you considered center mass; in relation to the concept of wind gravity?

Center-of-mass is an abstract concept, like the geographic center of a country. It's not a physical "thing." Guess that's immaterial (I feel more like Sheldon Cooper with each passing post)... but basically, no matter which underlying theory of gravitation is correct, the CoM would behave the same, be used the same way in math, and still be an important part of calculations. It shouldn't need special consideration in any gravitational-cause theory.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Static electricity could certainly move a wooden spoon.

On another note; op have you considered center mass; in relation to the concept of wind gravity?


If you were in a room with one of those rugs that when you rubbed your shoes upon it you will build up a large static electrical charge and just by touch you can zap someone prety good. LOL!

Now if you did the same thing and touched a person on the cheek with a held wooden spoon...what do you think would happen?

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion.

There; now I've cut'n'pasted something from Wikipedia.
But the point is, if I'm right, if gravity is a wind pushing matter around, then that same wind resists matter being pushed around by other mechanical forces... and thus, the same cause gives rise to the phenomena of both gravity and inertia. I didn't mean they were the same thing, only that they have a common cause. I'll try to watch how I word things a little better.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Depends on if you charged the spoon...either way there would be a mass transfer of positive and negative charge in the exchange.

Center of mass and center of gravity is the same thing for the those that need that info; it can be found in many large objects, and the gyroscopic effect of spinning makes it much easier to determine it's location.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


A Celestial Object such as a Potato Shaped Asteroid will have more than one Center of Mass thus more than one Gravity Well.

The Potato shaped asteroid will have two seperate Gravity Wells of any real effect although it can have a variety of other Micro-gravity wels such as the one between the two bulges of the potato shape that accounts for an amount of mass that is not fully governed by either of the two Gravity wells.

The Earth as all spheroid Planets and Celestial Bodies has one Gravity Well located at the planetary center. The Planetary Center will ALWAYS be the Center of Mass as well as the Center of Gravity in a Spheroid as a Gravity Wells location is always at the Center of Mass.

This Gravity Well and it's EFFECT is specific to the center of MASS even though if one was able to travel through a Planetary Core and Fall...and as they fell after a point there wopuld be a greater amount of mass OUTSIDE their direction of fall rather than at their direction of fall.

This has generated many questions but what is important is where the single point of what is a One Dimensional Expression that is Gravity...is located...for that will always be the center point of Gravitational Effect.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


Gravity is NOT a FORCE.

A FORCE is the interaction of Quantum Fields. Forces such as Magnetic use Quantum Fields such as those created by the Electrons orbitting an Atomic Nucleus...to place objects in motion.

Gravity does not do this. There is no Quantum Field involved. There are no Electron Orbits that are full thus repellling matter or Unfilled thus attracting matter.

There is just Matter changing the Dimensionality of Space/Time.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


"but they all have an effect, however slight... all the way to the edge of the universe."

That's an assumption. Theoretically, that's what any physicist would tell you. But it's entirely an assumption that it holds true in actuality.

I'm interested in where you're going with the thread, just wanted to point that out.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
 
Gravity is NOT a FORCE.

Shall we go back to Wikipedia again?

Gravitation, or gravity, is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses.

Or Universe Today?

The force of gravity is the force exerted by the gravitational field of a massive object on any body within the vicinity of its surface.

Gravity IS a force. There ain't a scientist alive who would say it isn't. Look again at the diagram in my OP; see the "F1=" that starts the equation? "F" means "force." The equation for gravity finds the force between any two masses. I believe you'll find that it's your definition of "force" that's in error.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
That's a very interesting theory.

I'm pretty good at math and logic. I'll try to think of a way to prove it mathematically while I go to sleep and get back to you in the morning. I have an idea already, but I need to give it more thought.

I talked to my physics professor a few years back, and he explained to me how there were serious holes in the current model of gravity. If this is it(which I'm not entirely positive it is), it's big news. I'm glad you offered to share the Nobel. I'm getting that bad boy eventually one way or another.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
 

Theoretically, that's what any physicist would tell you. But it's entirely an assumption that it holds true in actuality.

Andromeda is moving towards the Milky Way, despite accelerating universal expansion that should be moving us ever farther apart. That indicates to me that, even over 2.5 million lightyears, gravity is able to pull (or push) us together. Closer in, there are like, six dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way at distances up to 100,000 lightyears. If classical physics is right, that means there are messenger particles (mediators) whizzing back and forth between us, across all that distance. If they can manage that across 2.5 million ly, why not at 2.5 billion ly? Or any distance?

Or, of course, gravity is a repulsive force and no mediators are required...





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join