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.

 

Triple Star system may offer clue to true nature of Gravity

page: 1
38
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
One-of-a- kind triple star system may offer clue to true nature of gravity

According to a January 5 news release from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory , a team of astronomers using the NSF’s Green Bank Telescope has discovered a one-of-a-kind triple star system consisting of two white dwarf stars and a super-dense neutron star. Intriguingly, all three of these stars occupy an orbit smaller than that of Earth’s. This unique placement of three stars has permitted scientists to make the most accurate measurements yet of the intricate gravitational interactions in this type of star system. Eventually, the detailed analysis of this system may offer a major clue for understanding the true nature of gravity.

“This triple system gives us a natural cosmic laboratory far better than anything found before for learning exactly how such three-body systems work and potentially for detecting problems with General Relativity that physicists expect to see under extreme conditions,” said Scott Ransom, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “This is the first millisecond pulsar found in such a system, and we immediately recognized that it provides us a tremendous opportunity to study the effects and nature of gravity.”

The astronomers embarked...


This one seems like an interesting topic for ATS. A one of a kind triple star system I've read about binary and heard mention possible triple and quadruple but this one being observed may help deconstruct/dissect the true nature of 'Gravity'

Side note: Am I the only one who has never been a fan of how gravity has been represented *that of a bowling ball on a trampoline* Seems to me that space is mutli-Dimensional and wouldn't the supposed 'Well' take on the form of a sphere better surrounding the objects?

Anyhoo here you go...

edit on 6-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

SLAYER69
Side note: Am I the only one who has never been a fan of how gravity has been represented *that of a bowling ball on a trampoline* Seems to me that space is mutli-Dimensional and wouldn't the supposed 'Well' take on the form of a sphere better surrounding the objects?

You might like this little video I put together, showing how the 3-dimensional space is curved by bodies:



Kudos for the article by the way, very interesting news. Tidal forces in such a system must be enormous!



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

wildespace





NOW

That is how I've always imagined gravity.

Awesome!



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
"There is no gravity

Everything just sucks"

That's my sons two cents Jokingly...just got off the phone with him.



I thought it was funny


edit on 6-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




all three of these stars occupy an orbit smaller than that of Earth’s



Wow...that's...err....crazy. Can you imagine that...3 stars...packed so tightly. wow.

I am at a loss for words. Has something like this been ever detected before ?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 

I wish I had all three stars mentioned in the OP to give you for your great video. That should be played in each and every classroom where that tired ole trampoline analogy is trotted out.

As for the star system itself, yikes, there are probably things in the air there that nobody has words for.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Not being massive tools may also reveal the true nature of gravity as well.

As below, so above dammit!



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Why do they call it a gravity well? What's at the bottom of a well?

Is the pressure greater at the bottom of the well because something's pulling on the stuff above it, or is it simply that the stuff above is pushing on the stuff below, like it seems?

When you reach a certain point of depth in water where your buoyancy is less than the pressure above you, what do you do? Sink faster?

Why does the one side of the moon always face us? Why is most of an iceberg under the water?

Just freaking observe it!



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

SLAYER69
Side note: Am I the only one who has never been a fan of how gravity has been represented *that of a bowling ball on a trampoline* Seems to me that space is mutli-Dimensional and wouldn't the supposed 'Well' take on the form of a sphere better surrounding the objects?

It's hard to depict things in four-dimensional space with a two- or even a three-dimensional illustration. I have to remind myself that the curvature represented is actually in four dimensions, and is pulling at an "additional" right angle to normal 3-D spacetime. Like "into" it somehow. My brain can make a tiny bit of sense of it for about a half-second, then loses it.


The more dimensions you add, the harder it gets to visualize.


edit on 6-1-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
How can you observe a light wave and wonder about it's nature without also wondering about the nature of the medium which allows the wave to propagate? The properties of that medium determine the characteristics of the wave. Sound, light, it doesn't matter it's the same. Sound travels in air, light travels in something else.

Imagine for a moment that standing on the face of the earth, you are standing at the bottom of a vast ocean of a water that we know nothing about.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Blue Shift

SLAYER69
Side note: Am I the only one who has never been a fan of how gravity has been represented *that of a bowling ball on a trampoline* Seems to me that space is mutli-Dimensional and wouldn't the supposed 'Well' take on the form of a sphere better surrounding the objects?

It's hard to depict things in four-dimensional space with a two- or even a three-dimensional illustration. I have to remind myself that the curvature represented is actually in four dimensions, and is pulling at an "additional" right angle to normal 3-D spacetime. Like "into" it somehow. My brain can make a tiny bit of sense of it for about a half-second, then loses it.


The more dimensions you add, the harder it gets to visualize.


edit on 6-1-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)


That relates to what I've been saying for years, a crazy theory that gravity and time are the same thing. Time is a gravitational pull, in my crazy or uncrazy theory, and why not? That's why I'm betting that nobody will find the "elusive" graviton, because it's not a particle, it's a, well, someone else do the math, and we'll team up for some prize or two.
edit on 6-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


That is awesome when compared to the typical model but what causes everything to move in towards it? Gravity yes, but it still doesn't explain what causes the strongest and weakest force we know.

When you have a flat surface and place an object on it the curvature helps to represent gravity. You can visualize how things will follow the curve but in a 3D model all that changes.

edit on 6-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




all three of these stars occupy an orbit smaller than that of Earth’s



Wow...that's...err....crazy. Can you imagine that...3 stars...packed so tightly. wow.

I am at a loss for words. Has something like this been ever detected before ?


Yes. There are plenty of binary, triple and quad systems that have two or more stars that close together.

What makes this system unique is that these are all dead stars (2 white dwarfs, 1 neutron star) which of course have high mass/high gravity which allows interesting new observations.

By the way, expect a lot of new announcements about stars, planets, galaxies and space in general this week. It's the 223rd biannual AAS meeting in Washington, DC.

I like this one: SPACE.com Newfound Earth-Mass Planet Is a Gassy Puffball



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Interesting Triple System.

Perhaps Gravitational forces are pulling them in, But their Magnetic Fields are repelling them?

Humans still have much to learn.

The Rules of Space are....There are no Rules.....maybe.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
How can you observe a light wave and wonder about it's nature without also wondering about the nature of the medium which allows the wave to propagate? The properties of that medium determine the characteristics of the wave. Sound, light, it doesn't matter it's the same. Sound travels in air, light travels in something else.


UV, Visible Light, Infrared, radio, microwaves, any electromagnetic radiation (EMR) propagates through free space, a vacuum etc. Depending on wavelength such EMR can penetrate different things to different degrees of success.

Here's a chart showing what waves reach the Earth easily and which ones our atmosphere pretty much quiets down or is opaque to.






Imagine for a moment that standing on the face of the earth, you are standing at the bottom of a vast ocean of a water that we know nothing about.


We astronomers don't have to imagine it. We know all too well that's what it is like looking through Earth's atmosphere and yours is a good description of it. Twinkle, twinkle little star is cute when you're little but if you're an astronomer that twinkle (caused by the Earth's atmosphere) is a major headache for certain types of observations.

Luckily in the 80s or so they started using adaptive optics systems and now all large telescopes, and even some smaller ones have it. This allows us to cancel out the watery effect of our atmosphere by shooting a laser into space to make an artificial star!


Here's how it works:



And yes we do know what the Earth's atmosphere is made up of. It's been well studied for centuries.
edit on 6-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Gravity isn't so hard to understand. It is our minds which are being pushed and pulled into different directions trying to find an answer for it.

It's just spin.

Take two (bendable) reeds or a stalk of grass. One being half the length of the other (or the other being twice the length of the one). Pinch the ends with thumb and fore finger. Spin and twirl it. See what happens.


edit on 6-1-2014 by arcturus7 because: typo mistakes

edit on 6-1-2014 by arcturus7 because: typo mistakes



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The trampoline analogy always made it seem to me like it was much more complex. Like there must be a reason they used a trampoline analogy...

So space and time are bent towards centers of mass?

Maybe the best analogy is the analogy that communicates objects aren't being attracted to centers of mass but that objects are obeying the bends in space and time. This way a person doesn't think of gravity like a field - possible confusion results. So maybe this is why they use the trampoline analogy? It communicates that objects follow the bend, they're not "attracted" to a center of mass. It's like gravity is a structural phenomenon and we obey its attributes.
edit on 6-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
How can you observe a light wave and wonder about it's nature without also wondering about the nature of the medium which allows the wave to propagate?


EM waves don't need a medium. That's the neat part.



The properties of that medium determine the characteristics of the wave. Sound, light, it doesn't matter it's the same. Sound travels in air, light travels in something else.


Sound and light are very different. Sound needs a medium because it's a longitudinal wave. Light isn't a wave of compression in a medium.



Imagine for a moment that standing on the face of the earth, you are standing at the bottom of a vast ocean of a water that we know nothing about.


No ocean needed.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Gadzooks!

I thought I was the only one not getting the bowling ball / trampoline thing on all the science shows. How on Earth does that translate to three dimensions? Shouldn't the center of the ball distort space/time all the way around it?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Ahhhh...That is a much better tool. Makes more sense, 'feels' right. Good job



new topics

top topics



 
38
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join