- #1
Beautiful_Gravity
- 3
- 0
This is my first post here, so I will introduce myself. I'm Allen, just a 16 year old interested in physics and eager to learn more.
So I was reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and a few ideas and examples involving gravity dawned on me. I am sure that they have been addressed before, and I am also sure that there are theories pertaining to them. Anyway, without further ado, here is my proposition put forth for your analysis.
The law of conservation of energy, as well as Newton's third law can be summed up together to say (which I have labeled as my golden rule of physics, no matter what experiment I am working): Everything must be accounted for, everything. So, in theory, the following statement would be true. The total amount of gravitational force exerted by an object must equal the amount of gravitational force simultaneously acting upon said object. Also, it is well known that the amount of gravity is proportional to an object's mass. Keeping these two things in mind at all times, I'll continue with an idea.
(I brought this next topic up to my science class last year and two people grasped it. I was one, and the teacher was the other)
The mass of the Earth, is constant, unless something enters or leaves the atmosphere. Some may argue that overpopulation and industrialism must make the mass rise. However, for every bit that someone grows, or for every building that is constructed, something must be taken from the environment. The Earth's mass never changes. My class was dumbfounded, everyone argued that overpopulation MUST have an effect on the mass of the Earth. Well anyways, that is what got me thinking that everything must be accounted and compensated for.
After reading Greene's book, I began to think more about gravity, something must be missing, and I want to find out what that something is. I began thinking of a new way to describe gravity, and I am still working on a theory. I do, however, have an example that I would like to share with you all, and get your feedback.
Say, for example, you have a splendid new shiny bowling ball. It is a beautiful bowling ball indeed. The bowling ball has mass, therefore it has a certain amount of gravity proportional to said mass. So why then, don't things with a smaller gravity than your new bowling ball become attracted to it? Because, my dear, the whole of the ball's gravity is being exerted directly on the Earth. The Earth has a huge amount of mass, therefore it has a proportionately huge amount of gravity to exert. Although 100% of the ball's gravity is being used upon the Earth, only a miniscule fraction of the Earth's gravity is being used on our shiny spherical buddy. So, the Earth is cancelling out all gravity exerted by the bowling ball, and the bowling ball is cancelling out a tiny fraction of the Earth's sweet gravity. Where does the canceled gravity go, one might ask? That is what I will next attempt to explain.
So here we are, with our bowling ball in hand, prepared to launch it by cannon, into the Earth's orbit. If we do this, how can we expect gravity to react? Well, everything must be accounted for. So, still, since the Earth is amazingly larger than the ball, all of the ball's gravitation, even whilst in orbit, will be canceled out by the Earth (after all, it is still in the Earth's orbit). What about the Earth's tiny fraction of gravity, you might ask? Well 100% of that exact small fraction of gravitational force would, in theory, still be going towards the cancellation of your bowling ball's gravitational force, to keep it in orbit.
So what would happen then, if we launched the ball even further, to just outside of the Earth's gravitational field entirely? Well, according to my theory, the bowling ball, would then attain it's own gravitational field (although it would be a small one, compared to that of the Earth). Where would it get this newfound gravitational force? And what about the tiny fraction of the Earth's gravitation that was being used to cancel the bowling ball's out? Well, according to theory, that exciting new gravitational field that the bowling ball has, was "borrowed" from that of the Earth. HUH?!?
Well think of it this way, it is sort of like a "gravitational displacement". The Earth has lost a bowling ball's amount of mass, and therefore has also lost a bowling ball's amount of gravitational force. While the ball was on the planet, and inside the planet's gravity, Earth's gravitational field was static, not changing, for the field, as a whole, had not lost or gained anything. Now as soon as the ball left the field, it packed it's bags and took it's gravity with it. So now, the Earth's gravitational field as a whole is smaller, because of the lost (or, no longer cancelled) gravity.
So, this raises an interesting question about gravityas well as mass. If gravity is proportionate to mass, why then would the total gravitational field of the Earth not change while the bowling ball is in orbit? After all, the ball isn't directly part of the planet's mass any longer. Also, is it not gravity directly that brings objects together? Or, is it merely the cancellation of gravity between two objects that brings them together so that the gravitational field may remain static?
Well, It is late, and I am tired. So take my two cents and please give me feedback. I am just a sophomore in high school interested in this sort of thing. I am guessing beforehand that I am way out of line with this theory, however helpful critisism would be greatly appreciated. Also, I am just 16 years old, If this whole theory has already been stated and addressed, so be it, I would be glad because I thought of it on my own.
Cheers everyone,
Allen
So I was reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and a few ideas and examples involving gravity dawned on me. I am sure that they have been addressed before, and I am also sure that there are theories pertaining to them. Anyway, without further ado, here is my proposition put forth for your analysis.
The law of conservation of energy, as well as Newton's third law can be summed up together to say (which I have labeled as my golden rule of physics, no matter what experiment I am working): Everything must be accounted for, everything. So, in theory, the following statement would be true. The total amount of gravitational force exerted by an object must equal the amount of gravitational force simultaneously acting upon said object. Also, it is well known that the amount of gravity is proportional to an object's mass. Keeping these two things in mind at all times, I'll continue with an idea.
(I brought this next topic up to my science class last year and two people grasped it. I was one, and the teacher was the other)
The mass of the Earth, is constant, unless something enters or leaves the atmosphere. Some may argue that overpopulation and industrialism must make the mass rise. However, for every bit that someone grows, or for every building that is constructed, something must be taken from the environment. The Earth's mass never changes. My class was dumbfounded, everyone argued that overpopulation MUST have an effect on the mass of the Earth. Well anyways, that is what got me thinking that everything must be accounted and compensated for.
After reading Greene's book, I began to think more about gravity, something must be missing, and I want to find out what that something is. I began thinking of a new way to describe gravity, and I am still working on a theory. I do, however, have an example that I would like to share with you all, and get your feedback.
(This is hard to type out, and to keep my thoughts organized, so bear with me, voice any questions you have and I would be glad to answer them. Trust me, when verbally announced, the following actually makes sense.)
Say, for example, you have a splendid new shiny bowling ball. It is a beautiful bowling ball indeed. The bowling ball has mass, therefore it has a certain amount of gravity proportional to said mass. So why then, don't things with a smaller gravity than your new bowling ball become attracted to it? Because, my dear, the whole of the ball's gravity is being exerted directly on the Earth. The Earth has a huge amount of mass, therefore it has a proportionately huge amount of gravity to exert. Although 100% of the ball's gravity is being used upon the Earth, only a miniscule fraction of the Earth's gravity is being used on our shiny spherical buddy. So, the Earth is cancelling out all gravity exerted by the bowling ball, and the bowling ball is cancelling out a tiny fraction of the Earth's sweet gravity. Where does the canceled gravity go, one might ask? That is what I will next attempt to explain.
So here we are, with our bowling ball in hand, prepared to launch it by cannon, into the Earth's orbit. If we do this, how can we expect gravity to react? Well, everything must be accounted for. So, still, since the Earth is amazingly larger than the ball, all of the ball's gravitation, even whilst in orbit, will be canceled out by the Earth (after all, it is still in the Earth's orbit). What about the Earth's tiny fraction of gravity, you might ask? Well 100% of that exact small fraction of gravitational force would, in theory, still be going towards the cancellation of your bowling ball's gravitational force, to keep it in orbit.
So what would happen then, if we launched the ball even further, to just outside of the Earth's gravitational field entirely? Well, according to my theory, the bowling ball, would then attain it's own gravitational field (although it would be a small one, compared to that of the Earth). Where would it get this newfound gravitational force? And what about the tiny fraction of the Earth's gravitation that was being used to cancel the bowling ball's out? Well, according to theory, that exciting new gravitational field that the bowling ball has, was "borrowed" from that of the Earth. HUH?!?
Well think of it this way, it is sort of like a "gravitational displacement". The Earth has lost a bowling ball's amount of mass, and therefore has also lost a bowling ball's amount of gravitational force. While the ball was on the planet, and inside the planet's gravity, Earth's gravitational field was static, not changing, for the field, as a whole, had not lost or gained anything. Now as soon as the ball left the field, it packed it's bags and took it's gravity with it. So now, the Earth's gravitational field as a whole is smaller, because of the lost (or, no longer cancelled) gravity.
So, this raises an interesting question about gravityas well as mass. If gravity is proportionate to mass, why then would the total gravitational field of the Earth not change while the bowling ball is in orbit? After all, the ball isn't directly part of the planet's mass any longer. Also, is it not gravity directly that brings objects together? Or, is it merely the cancellation of gravity between two objects that brings them together so that the gravitational field may remain static?
Well, It is late, and I am tired. So take my two cents and please give me feedback. I am just a sophomore in high school interested in this sort of thing. I am guessing beforehand that I am way out of line with this theory, however helpful critisism would be greatly appreciated. Also, I am just 16 years old, If this whole theory has already been stated and addressed, so be it, I would be glad because I thought of it on my own.
Cheers everyone,
Allen