Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[urtalkinstupid]

terrabyte got SERVED...

Thanx Integral.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Also, terrabyte, I've never noticed how much error you have in that statement. If black holes have sufficient mass, doesn't the neutron star it was born from have sufficient enough mass also? This sounds like a density problem.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

Wrong! The first verification of GR came from the measuring the bending of light as it passed the sun. Do some research on Gravitational lensing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- ownage! now all we have to do is sit back and wait for terrabyte to get all defensive and revert to personally attacking everyone on this thread...

 

[Alkatran]

Alkatran, I asked you earlier if you have ever seen Einstein's total energy equation before i presented it. So, have you?

No, I never saw it before this. But I already said that, or at least hinted at it by asking about it.

Here is beatrix kiddo's equation in an easier to read way:

Unless you couldn't tell, I was writing all my equations out the way I normally do in programming. I'm used to seeing 5+ levels of parathenses. If you're going to write an equation WRONG, don't make fun of people who read it the way you WROTE it instead of the way you MEANT it.

Also, terrabyte, I've never noticed how much error you have in that statement. If black holes have sufficient mass, doesn't the neutron star it was born from have sufficient enough mass also? This sounds like a density problem.

How does this sound?:

If you are OUTSIDE something, it doesn't matter how much you shrink or expand it, the force of gravity stays the same (this is the conclusion I came from with my point-summing program).

If you are INSIDE something (see: star to black hole) the force WILL get stronger as it shrinks. Until you are OUTSIDE it again. After that the force will stay the same.

From this comes the obvious conclusion that the radius of the event horizon of a black hole is much smaller than the radius of the star it came from.


The reason that force goes down when you're inside something is you ignore the shell around you. It is geometricly proven that if you are within the shell of a sphere or circle, the sum of the (the axes that make up vectors? Sorry, french education, don't know the term) of the inverse of the distance squared from all the points of that shell total out to 0.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

i thought u (of all ppl) would have understood that the division slash i used was meant to divide that entire side. i mean.. it's basic algebra, right? I'm not an idiot alkatran..
what do u mean it doesn't matter how far u shrink something?? let's say we've got a binary star system. the stars are "pulling" on each other but they are not overpowering each other to the point where one of the stars starts directly falling into the other. however, one of the stars becomes a neutron star. how come the neutron star's partner begins to fall into it and form an accretion disk if the mass hasn't changed but density has?? (neutron stars have the same mass as the stars they came from..2 to 3 solar masses)
"binary pulsars can emit strong gravitational waves because the neutron stars contain large amounts of mass in a small volume. this also means that binary pulsars can be sites of tremendous violence because of the strength of gravity at the surface of a neutron star." foundations of astronomy pg.290.. man i love this book..

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, a diecast Einstein fan has never heard of Einstein's total energy equation...Weird...

Yea, I program also, so I know what you are used to. beatrix kiddo doesn't program, so she didnt' know.

The equation for calculating the force betweent he objects is not correct. The reason why it doesn't change force, is because you are not including density. Take a ray of light. It is passing through he vacuum of space. A neutron star is approaching. This neutron star is more dense than the star it burned out from. This more dense star has affects of gravity that seem to be stronger, but the equation doesn't sohw this excess force. Around this object, light is bent more than it would have been if that object were less dense. Why? The object light is able to get closer to the center of gravity of the object. Why? The object is more dense, it has less volume but the same mass. Ok, the density of objects may not have an affect on huge objects, but the affect on light is visible. Now, that star condenses into a black hole. Same mass, but zero volume. Light is bent backwards. The density of objects has an gravitational affect on objects with a velocity towards the denser object? If the object is taking a path then, if the object it were traveling to were to get more dense, then the object with velocity would take a natural path towards the dense object, therefore allowing that object to get closer to the denser object's center of gravity. Which leads to more devistating gravitational effects.

Arg, I can not explain it how I want to. I'll figure out a better way to explain it. In all seriousness, you can not go by what Einstein taught if you have never heard of his total energy equation. That's pathetic. I don't think Einstein should be credited for much, but even I have heard of that equation.

 

[terrabyte]

Thanks Integral for inciting the young'uns :|

all mass bends light

only black holes have sufficient mass to bend it to where we can detect it.

Integral: Wrong! The first verification of GR came from the measuring the bending of light as it passed the sun. Do some research on Gravitational lensing.

in case you guys were too giddy with joy to notice, he was saying wrong to the second part, not the first.

which does nothing to validate your case at all, so you can wipe the smirks off your faces.

as far as neutron stars go see Integral's above reference to how even our own suns' mass bends light. it's NOT a density issue. go to the back of the class, "stupid"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- ownage! now all we have to do is sit back and wait for terrabyte to get all defensive and revert to personally attacking everyone on this thread...

poor guy, laughing at his own ineptitude...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

tisk. tisk. terrabyte... i knew u'd return to post ur puerile opinion sooner or later. i guess it took u a bit longer to reply because a mentor "stirred" us up and we got a bit too rowdy for ur comfort level. uh.. what makes u think we thought he said the first part was wrong? it's cute that u underestimate my comprehension by assuming i can't read.. cough.cough. and, unlike u, I've read my history and i know that gravity bending light was first noticed around the sun. and how am i laughing at MY foolishness when u're the one who came back, like i said, got personal, like i said, and poorly defended urself, like i said. HAHAHAHA... that's ineptitude for u.

also... do u have anything to say about my post and my book source describing binary star systems and density?? i know u saw it, so instead of pulling a typical terrabyte just stick to the physics.. please.

 

[terrabyte]

why don't you post the whole thing so we can see what it says in context instead of vicariously through your insipid excerpts?

you could also post the copyright date as well

 

[quantumdude]

This is just about the silliest thread I have ever seen. It was brought to my attention by one of the Mentors, and so I started going through it. I was editing the thread, deleting personal attacks and inane babbling, when I finally got sick of it around Page 13. This thread is done.

For future reference: Physics Forums is not a chat room for children. If that's what you are looking for, then go to MSN or Yahoo or something.