It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 2
38
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 09:05 PM

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

I was searching YouTube a few weeks ago for videos which showed the true nature of how mass bends space-time. Your video was the only one I could find which showed a true 3D representation of space-time bending towards the mass. It seems the trampoline analogy is very overused and no one wants to really understand how it works on a 3D level. I'm glad to see it was made by an ATS member... what confuses me though is the number of dislikes your video has. Is it just that people don't like thinking about gravity from a 3D perspective or is there actually some sort of attempt to hide this 3D representation from the public eye? Judging by the lack of material which explains gravity from a 3D perspective, I'm inclined to believe that someone doesn't want us thinking about gravity that way.

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:28 PM

I think the trampoline analogy was born out of lazyness and lack of desire to visualise the 3D space. The two main pitfalls of the trampoline analogy is that 1) it uses gravity (which makes the ball to sink into the trampoline) to explain gravity, and 2) a small ball (if stationary) will roll towards the big ball's "south pole" rather than towards its centre.

Judging by the comments to my video, most dislikes are either because people insist that I didn't include visualisation of time (although time is not a dimension of space, it's a separate dimension), or some people just don't like the music track.
But I think you can imagine the distortion of time in that video: space lines that are stretched out towards the body also imply the "stretched out" time, i.e. time flows slower near massive bodies.

~~~

On the OP's topic of the three stars, they are technically not stars but stellar remnants. They are no bigger than Earth. The original stars were much larger, of course, but I also think they were further apart and got pulled towards each other by tidal forces.

I've read about some star cluster where there are four blue supergiants occupying a volume of space just 1 light year across (approximately the size of the Solar System if you include the Oort Cloud). Now, that is a scary environment to be in.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:30 AM

Lets say that we use the bowling ball on a trampoline model which explains - that the moon orbits around the Earth not because it is attracted to each other, but because Earth distorts the space-time around it.. the moon is in essence traveling straight, however results in an orbit due to the space-time distortion.

This description does not make sense to me.. How does that phenomenon, explain for example, a rock falling to the ground? .. or water droplets converging together in space?

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:42 AM

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!

And yes we do know what the Earth's atmosphere is made up of. It's been well studied for centuries.

When I refer to a sea of water we know nothing about, I'm not referring to the atmosphere. I understand we know all about our atmosphere. I'm saying that space is the ocean, and we know nothing about it, hence our grave misunderstanding about the things we just haven't quite been able to tackle yet. Gravity, inertia...

We haven't a unified theory because we misunderstand. We see what we see, it just isn't what it looks like. It's not really our fault, in all our existence as self aware beings, we've lived under the influence of gravity, and it is very difficult for us to imagine gravity in a context other than our two dimensional experience of it over the millennia. Gravity, I believe, is a function of the inflation of space, and when I say space, I mean all space. Not just the space between clusters, not the stuff they're calling dark matter.

If space exists all around us, it also exists within us. Within our environment, within our planet, within our galaxy. If space is inflating outward from all points in space, as I believe Hubble correctly observed, then all space is inflating, and exceptions cannot be made for scale or reference. If space is inflating on the intergalactic scale, then it is also inflating on the quantum scale. The uniformity in heat dispersion in the cosmic background radiation also suggests this.

It is hard to wrap your mind around the possibility that even the very atoms in your body, and their constituents are inflating at the same relative rate as the entire universe, but if you say space is inflating, it's just egotistical to suggest that we are not subject to that inflation. When in space, do what space does.

Imagine that when you are born, you are, well, the size a baby is when they're born. Imagine then that when you turn 1 year old, you are the size a truck was when you were born. By the time you're five, you're the size of a football stadium. By the time you're full grown, you might be as big as the moon was when you were born. And by the time you take your last breath, you're the size that the Milky Way was when you were born.

And all that time you could never observe that, because everything around you was also inflating at that same relative rate.

What if an average lifespan of a universe of our type was say, 400 trillion years. On that kind of a timeframe, could we not consider our universe to be still 'in the big bang?'

Freaky, I know. But just one more thing. If it is suggested that a light wave propagates through nothing then it can no longer be called a wave, because the existence of a wave confirms a propagating media. I believe light is a wave, and that it travels through a medium. When we learn about this medium, we will discover the true nature of gravity, and taking a sharp turn in a car will suddenly be weird for us because we will understand inertia, among other cool things.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Mon1k3r because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:06 AM
Just to add to what I've already suggested in this thread, I also suggest that there are people in this world that have in the past, and currently do understand to a much greater degree than mainstream education and common knowledge concepts such as:

a) Gravity/inertia
b) Perfectly clean, limitless energy production.
c) Wireless transmission of electricity.

These and other supposed unknown concepts and technologies not so relevant to this thread, are things that are being hidden through systematic indoctrination of scientific methods that insist that we understand observationally and mathematically, instead of creatively and intuitively.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:53 AM

Mon1k3r
Why do they call it a gravity well?

Because, like a well, if you're in one, you have to climb out to get out.

Harte

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:45 AM

Nice thread! And I cant wait for more posts like these (better than debating differences between beliefs)

peace.
edit on 7-1-2014 by dodol because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:45 AM

ChaoticOrder

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

I was searching YouTube a few weeks ago for videos which showed the true nature of how mass bends space-time. Your video was the only one I could find which showed a true 3D representation of space-time bending towards the mass. It seems the trampoline analogy is very overused and no one wants to really understand how it works on a 3D level. I'm glad to see it was made by an ATS member... what confuses me though is the number of dislikes your video has. Is it just that people don't like thinking about gravity from a 3D perspective or is there actually some sort of attempt to hide this 3D representation from the public eye? Judging by the lack of material which explains gravity from a 3D perspective, I'm inclined to believe that someone doesn't want us thinking about gravity that way.

I'd say it's the later, there are alot of issues present by curved space time in 3d, which should be pretty obvious when you watch that video, perpendicular orbital paths being one of the more obvious. Trying to use the standard lines for explaining gravity get a lot harder when you introduce wild's video, it also requires a little more mental capacity to absorb.

Personally, I think this video should be played in every 8th grade science class in the country, it makes it a lot easier to visualize the issues with how people try to present the concept of gravity and space time. I'd also include an excerpt for crazy man Nashim haram or whatever his name is, showing the solar system spiraling through space with the sun as opposed to the standard top down 2d view as it's a basic revelation I think alot of people could use and is probably required to really see why wilds version makes better sense when you stop thinking of orbits as 2 dimensional circles.

Mon1k3r

These and other supposed unknown concepts and technologies not so relevant to this thread, are things that are being hidden through systematic indoctrination of scientific methods that insist that we understand observationally and mathematically, instead of creatively and intuitively.

While I agree with what you say, can you imagine if such philosophy was applied to genetic research on a large scale? Just intuit your way through the genome? I think there has to be some practicality and determinable standard measure of accuracy involved when you want to do experimental investigations into the basic workings of life and matter and energy.

Back to the article, I wonder when a 'neutron star' became an actual defined term solid enough to be used to describe a radio signal from space. When the scientific community doesn't even know what defines a neutron star, it seems pretty daft to use an undefined term to try and discern the nature of gravity.

Considering the only object ever observed that is somewhat like the idea of a neutron star didn't fit the basic requirements and gave birth to 'quark stars' you have to consider if these guys have any idea what they are looking at.

edit on 7-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 02:04 PM

Mon1k3r

These and other supposed unknown concepts and technologies not so relevant to this thread, are things that are being hidden through systematic indoctrination of scientific methods that insist that we understand observationally and mathematically, instead of creatively and intuitively.

vind21
While I agree with what you say, can you imagine if such philosophy was applied to genetic research on a large scale? Just intuit your way through the genome? I think there has to be some practicality and determinable standard measure of accuracy involved when you want to do experimental investigations into the basic workings of life and matter and energy.

Genetic research is driven by different motives. It's a burgeoning industry and the money flows in from investors. Research in physics, astronomy, and cosmology has to be funded by charity, basically. There are few individuals and corporations that stand to profit in the near term by research into these fields.

Career scientists in this field who have secured grants for these types of research must continually show progress in order to continue to receive them. Entire careers could be destroyed should old concepts be proven obsolete, so by a function of the way we continue the research into these fields, progress is slowed or stopped.

All the experimental evidence that would be necessary to prove the true nature of gravity already exists, but the evidence thus far so closely resembles what we think we are observing, that it stands. The problem is not a lack of evidence, it is a combination of adherence to a status quo for the sake of continuing funding, and also the intentional misrepresentation of the evidence by those who have an interest in keeping the reality of these things hidden. Not everyone on the planet misunderstands gravity and the true nature of space, which are inextricably linked. Some understand it fully, and can use it to their benefit.

Just to reiterate my example, if space is inflating as observational data suggests, then it is inflating everywhere, not just in the depths of the 'vacuum' of space. It is inflating within us and within everything in our immediate environment. Were the math to reflect this inflation uniformly throughout space, there would no need to add arbitrary numbers to either side of equations to make them work. There would be no need for concepts like dark matter or dark energy, which at best are simply fancy words for 'I don't know.'

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 02:30 PM

MarioOnTheFly

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 ?

I've been a fan of science research for the past 30 years (New Scientist, Scientific American, Astronomy Now, Sky at Night, Tomorrow's World, sciencedaily.com, ...), that's the first time any astronomer has been able to analyze a three-body system.

All analytical methods only deal with two-body systems eg. Sun/Earth, Earth/Moon.

Even the planetary position calculation algorithms just work on a long list of correction factors for the orbital perturbations of each planet on the sun and each other.

Combine a triple star system with the effect of relativity and gravitational effects slowing time down, and they should be able to work out how fast the gravitational force-field changes.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 02:46 PM

Me too!!!! The bowling ball on a sheet if rubber always seemed a little inadequate as a descriptor this 3d representation is much more realistic and accurate a excellent tool for teaching or describing how gravity interacts around object.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 03:23 PM

Rosinitiate
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.

The way I see it in my head, it makes things fall into another dimension. Mass isn't so much a "thing" as it is a kind of hole or vortex that has its own little event horizon working for it. It's shaped like an ice cream cone with a cone part that falls away into another dimension and a round part on top where energy gets backlogged (as it were). With magnetism, the round part seems so solid that when you put two similar poles together, they slide off each other like ball bearings. But gravity has a weak round end, so everything falls past everything else (or tries to).

That's the way I see it, anyway.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:01 PM

stormcell
I've been a fan of science research for the past 30 years (New Scientist, Scientific American, Astronomy Now, Sky at Night, Tomorrow's World, sciencedaily.com, ...), that's the first time any astronomer has been able to analyze a three-body system.

All analytical methods only deal with two-body systems eg. Sun/Earth, Earth/Moon.

Even the planetary position calculation algorithms just work on a long list of correction factors for the orbital perturbations of each planet on the sun and each other.

Combine a triple star system with the effect of relativity and gravitational effects slowing time down, and they should be able to work out how fast the gravitational force-field changes.

The three body problem is a famous and unsolvable problem in orbital mechanics:

The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits).

The unsolvableness of the 3-body problem, rather than being an embarrassing hole in physics; an obvious but unsolved problem, is actually the norm. In physics, the number of not-baby-simple, exactly solvable problems can be counted on the fingers of one hand (that’s missing some fingers), and that includes the 2-body problem.

Source

Harte

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:20 PM

One of the most exciting possibilities of this discovery is determining if General Relativity breaks down in extreme conditions:

"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 (NRAO).

Then further down in the article, the following statement is made:

"We have made some of the most accurate measurements of masses in astrophysics," said Anne Archibald, of the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy. "Some of our measurements of the relative positions of the stars in the system are accurate to hundreds of meters," she said. Archibald led the effort to use the measurements to build a computer simulation of the system that can predict its motions.

The research on this system used techniques dating back to those used by Issac Newton to study the Earth-Moon-Sun system, combined with the "new" gravity of Albert Einstein, which was required to make the precise measurements. In turn, the scientists said, the system promises a chance to point the way to the next theory of gravity.

So, doesn't this mean that they used General Relativity to get those very precise measurements. Yet, they are trying to prove that General Relativity breaks down in extreme cases like this?

Dex

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:46 AM
Assume space is fluid, not vacuum. Understand space is inflating at a relatively uniform rate, and that as space inflates and comes into contact with mass it compresses as would water against the ocean floor. Also realize that space expands from within as it does without. The space between, and inside the atoms that make up matter is also inflating. The constituents of matter, atomic particles and even the subatomic realm are not exempt from this inflation. The literal substructure of the universe is inflating, and everything within it as well. Matter or solidity slows inflation ever so slightly compared to the inflation unhindered by mass in free space. Things that we observe that suggest gravity as a 'pulling' force, observe as a constant pressure from constant inflation of space. There is a differentiation of the force exerted by space inflation unhindered by mass compared to the inflation that occurs within the mass, because as space converts to matter, each constituent of matter, every atom, every molecule creates conditions which hinder the inflation slightly, creating each it's own 'gravitational field'.

Equilibrium in a zero g environment is caused by space inflating inward onto the mass, and space inflating outward from the mass. When gravitational lensing occurs, it's just refraction of light through space, and the space is 'denser' in a gravitational field than it is in free space. Just like light refracting in water, it slows and curves.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:50 AM
Also, the periodic table of elements is wrong.

All wrong.

As long as I'm talking crazy.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM

Mon1k3r
Equilibrium in a zero g environment is caused...

There is no zero-g environment. Gravity extends infinitely (but gets weaker with distance). What you commonly know as a zero-g environment is simply a state of free-fall. You can experience it in a plane making a steep dive. The "zero-g" environment in a spacecraft orbiting Earth is due to the spacecraft falling around the Earth.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:54 AM
Yes, we do have a problem with definitions in science, thanks for pointing that out, but I think the point of that was missed completely. You are an astute observer of the obvious, but do you wonder why it is that gravity extends infinitely? It's because gravity is an action of space, space creates the cause and the effect of gravity. And there is nowhere where there is not space.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:17 PM
I was thinking about science facts and theory versus hypotheticals a while back. I was thinking about how hypothetical-thinking is fun because there's no requirement to explain all facts. Memorizing science facts, by comparison, is boring. When you rote memorize facts you're not the one doing the thinking, you're just b(p)oring over the fun someone else had. The crux of the matter is in order to create reasonable hypotheticals which can grow to become theories one must first learn the science facts, or otherwise your initial hypothesis will be grounded in fiction and not have any relation to reality. With modern science, the enormity of facts threatens to make science the most boring field to participate in.

Anyway, I still think the trampoline analogy is used to put emphasis on the fact gravity is a bending of space/time and THAT is why objects are moved to center(s) of gravity. They don't want you thinking gravity is the same thing as any other field you've encountered. Gravity is like nothing else, so they want you thinking differently. Something about the bending hints of awesome insight.

Confession: A lot of things in science are like hocus pocus to me. I just don't get it. I never have understood the trampoline analogy and in fact I've never understood gravity or been able to "picture" how the universe look as forces, even after being told how it behaves in some introductory physics classes. I spent hours reading the book and trying to understand, but it was really hard. All I really did was memorizing. I did not understand on a deep level. I regurgitated.

NOTE: Think of how they use the bar magnet and the bits of attracting metal to show the poles and shape of the field. That's helpful to picture in your mind how it looks, but they use a trampoline with gravity even though gravity behaves like a field, at least to an uneducated mind. I think they do this because they don't want you thinking of magnets. They want you to think on a different level.
edit on 8-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:07 PM

I would like to observe the iron filings in the magnetic lines in a gravitationally neutral environment, rather than within the two dimensions of our field.

new topics

top topics

38