Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

You say that the reason a tennis ball falls down is because the Earth acts as a shield. Thats means that if there's anything in the way, the force of gravity (push) is lower? So you're argument that the distances between night side and day side are similar is countered by this. By all means we should weigh much less at night since we are being pushed up by the earth, but not down by the sun. (In fact, just the fact that the sun pushes is the OPPOSITE direction says something).

Unless, somehow, the amount of gravity created by the night side is almost exactly equal to the amount we get from the sun, which would be quite the coincidence since the other planets also maintain orbit!

Yes, the Earth does act as a shield. Yes, if anything is in the way, the pressure exerted on an object is less in the direction in which the shield is in place. Nowhere in my theory did i say that the "we are being pushed down by the earth." The Earth does not emitt sub-atomic particles from it's core. The atmosphere does provide a slight push. AGAIN, let me say that the sun is not the only source. You have to take into consideration that we can only observe approx 4% of the universe, because the rest is not visible. Janus pointed out that the nearest star was 6400 times the distance of Plut, and that this star could have have any effect on the Earth or any other planet at that. Now, I would like to say sorry for even trying to introduce that stars effect how we are pushed down on Earth and how the planets stay in orbit. Have you ever heard of "dark matter" or "dark energy" from anyone or any reference? I'm sure they have SOME affect on this universe and how things are layed out. Would you agree with me on that? Dark matter probably has an effect like neutrinos. They inelastically collide with objects being absorbed. This absorption causes a pressure in the directino of application. So, what about night time on earth? THE EARTH DOES NOT PUSH AT ALL...so, do not try to say I'm saying that. At night, the sun is facing the opposite side. It emitts neutrinos which provide a force. Along with these neutrinos I'm sure there are other sub-atomic particles that apply a pressure on objects. On the night side, sub-atomic particles from space keep us on the ground. I'm sure they are even smaller than neutrinos...I could be wrong, but I do know that they are theorized but not yet discovered. These sub-atomic particles do the same as neutrinos, and I'm hypothesizing that they are in larger quantities than neutrinos also. These particles go through emission and absorption with objects exerting pressure in the process as well.

Please, I want more specific questions on this stuff.

Before I get off of here for awhile, I would like to ask all of you gravity is a pull dedicated people. The sun is a huge fusion reactor. As all of you know, fusion releases energy. The sun is losing mass every second, and as it's mass decreases. Wouldn't this decrease in mass cause less space-time curvature shortening the distance at which things can fall into it's gravatational field? Wouldn't our orbit change, because the Earth is not pulled as much?


Oh, are we clear on the particle/anti-particle thing?

 

[Alkatran]

The orbit wouldn't necessarily change so quickly that we could observe it.

Also, you still haven't answered why all the planets can be in unique orbits if there's an exterior force cancelling out the interior one.

Like Janus said: If you were closer to the outside, you would be pushed inward, and if you were closer to the inside you would be pushed outward.

We would all end up oscilatting above and below (assuming the sun is "down") a shell that held a net force of 0 along itself.

 

[Entropy]

Oh, are we clear on the particle/anti-particle thing?

Alright I see what you mean now. But I still fail to see what it had to do with Hawking radiation.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

Yes, you are right. The orbit wouldn't be noticeable, but the days would be altered. I'm sure if you look at the sunrise and sunset history...you could notice a difference. As for the orbits for the planets...MUST I say again that the sun isn't the ONLY SOURCE nor are the stars. There are more out there than the known sub-atomic particles. I'm there those are the ones that keep the orbits in such order. This is the best explanation I have SO FAR for the orbits, but I'll do more reasearch and see what kind of logical explanation I can come up with. I'm sure if the sun is losing mass, you could tell a difference in the orbit of pluto?

Entropy:

It has a lot to do with Hawking Radiation. I'm trying to look at this theory from a different angle (from gravity not existing and everything going through emission and absorption). What people think is happening, is not. At this so called "event horizon" of this "black hole" the binary star system is losing energy during the fusion process. This energy emitted in elementary particles as well as light set up a scenario. As these stars lose mass, they also get closer in their orbits. This energy that is being shot off by each stars collides in the center, resulting in particles and anti-particles flying around as well as the radiation that people thing is being radiated from the black hole.

 

[Muddler]

:zzz:

Hey guys! What's up? Didn't you notice I have been criticizing both parties of this discussion (-> Thread #28) ?
Does nobody want to argue?
Please, go ahead and give it to me !

 

[urtalkinstupid]

first take a definite side and then depending on that the other side will "give it to you"

 

[Entropy]

It has a lot to do with Hawking Radiation. I'm trying to look at this theory from a different angle (from gravity not existing and everything going through emission and absorption). What people think is happening, is not.

You know Hawking radiation is only theoratical don't you? Its never been observed.

At this so called "event horizon" of this "black hole" the binary star system is losing energy during the fusion process. This energy emitted in elementary particles as well as light set up a scenario. As these stars lose mass, they also get closer in their orbits.

Binary star systems at a black hole's event horizon? What are you talking about? Please elaborate or explain.

So binary stars lose mass and eventually collide? What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say particles from different stars hit and form neutrinos? The people here and I know that, were not debating it.

Look I'm just saying I don't know what you're talking about I'm not trying to bash you. I just don't know if you're just poor at writing or if English is your second language or if you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

resulting in particles and anti-particles flying around as well as the radiation that people thing is being radiated from the black hole.

Black holes do not give off any radiation except Hawking radiation which is not detectable from Earth.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Hawking's Radiation has been "observed" at the event horizon of a suspected black hole. Some black holes that have been "observed" have had binary stars orbiting it. I'm coming to the conclusion that black holes do not exist. Maybe you should study the topic of black holes more. The binary star system emit energy which collide in the center producing radiation along with sub-atomic particles and anti-particles. Observers of "black holes" say that they hypothesize a black hole when an immense amount of radiation is given off close to a binary star system...hmmm...radiation and binary star system. When these stars collide, it creates a big explosion giving off "jets" of material (black holes are hypothesized to shoot off jet like material). When a neutron star explodes, it does not form a black hole depending on the left over mass. Ask me more specific questions so i can answer...cuz I am sure this is not what you are looking for.

Black holes do not give off any radiation except Hawking radiation which is not detectable from Earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/heavy_blazar_040628.html

 

[Entropy]

That article doesn't even mention Hawking radiation.

Invisible to the naked eye, black holes can only be detected by the radiation they spew and their gravitational influence on their stellar neighbors.

I assume this is what you think Hawking radiation is. It is not! That is just objects being effected by the black hole's gravitational field or its photons being emitted by gas being accelerated to such high velocities as its being sucked in. As it circles into the black hole and "rubs" against other atoms it gets very hot and therefore glows (emits photons just before it passes the event horizon). Note that the gas falling into the black hole is what gives off radiation. Not the black hole itself.

And no Hawking radiation has not been observed. Anyone can tell you that.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Hr

I was simply providing you with that article to inform you that Hawking's radiation is not the only thing that is being detected from these "black holes." Hawking's Radiation is the particle/anti-particle pairing at the event horizon where the particle falls in and the anti-particle is given off. That is not the only thing detected, but you also detect gamma radiation. Also, I provided you with the article to tell you that they are able to detect these suspected black holes close to our Earth.

 

[Entropy]

I was simply providing you with that article to inform you that Hawking's radiation is not the only thing that is being detected from these "black holes."

Hawking radiation has NOT been detected, its theoratical. Some please back me up on this because he is having a hard time believing it.

Hawking's Radiation is the particle/anti-particle pairing at the event horizon where the particle falls in and the anti-particle is given off.

Its not always the anti-particle given off some times its the regular particle. And plus I already defined Hawking radiation so this is redundant.

Also, I provided you with the article to tell you that they are able to detect these suspected black holes close to our Earth.

Re-read my previous post. I said black holes give off no radiation except Hawking radiation. The object you see is the gas falling into the black hole which hasn't yet passed the event horizon and therefore is still able to emit light and that's how we detect black holes. You seem to think that the black holes themselves glow like normal stars or something.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

black holes

I know Hawking's radiation has not been detected, and not only is the Hawking's radiation theoretical but so is the black hole. One thing that we are certain is happening at the "event horizon" (or as I call it the area in between the binary star system) can be detected through photons emitted. This is what can be detected from Earth. This can also be explained without the theory of a black hole. As I stated above when the binary stars give off material, the material collides to form a particle/anti-particle pair. This is theorized as Hawking's radiation, which contribute to the black hole deteriating (spell check). Now as for the the "glowing" OUTSIDE of the "event horizon" that is theorized. That can simply be explained by the collision of molecules that are giving off particles/anti-particles. Observe the sun for instance. It glows because of fusion, which gives off particles, sub-atomic particles, and anti-particles. This collision heats up and gives off UV radiation. In binary star systems, the collisions are more powerful, which result in the gamma radiation that are being detected around the vicinity of the "black hole." Black holes are theorized, and this theory should be laid to rest.

 

[Entropy]

I know Hawking's radiation has not been detected

Then why did you say it has?

And besides these things aren't binary stars they are disks. You can tell just by looking at them that they aren't two stars orbiting each other. And we know that binary stars don't look like disks because we've seen thousands of binary star systems and they just appear as two stars orbiting each other.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

first of all, i totally agree with urtalkinstupid and the push theory of gravity. i understand why he says that a pull makes no sense in that there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle) so a large heavenly body, like the sun, "pulling" on a smaller body, say the earth, is also a hard thing to grasp. if gravity was indeed a pull, what would be its equal and opposite reaction? why haven't we detected it yet? gravity is caused by subatomic particles pelting the Earth on all sides. these particles come from the sun and other bodies surrounding our totally awesome planet (he he). you say that we should weigh a gram at night because we're not facing the sun, eh? like urtalkinstupid said neutrinos are coming at us from other sources and even though they are pretty far away, we are getting a constant stream of these subatomic particles, just like when we are facing the sun. if the moon crosses in front of the sun, the side of the Earth facing that occurrence will not feel gravity's push anymore than the other side because the moon partially blocks the neutrinos from the sun to the earth. however, these blocked particles are made up because the neutrinos are able to pass through the moon. thus, there isn't a really difference. now that I am up to speed allow me to say that black holes don't exist. urtalkinstupid i applaud you for accurately describing what we percieve as the event horizon of a black hole. those subatomic particle collisions can be quite the scientific tricksters. anything associated with the pull theory of gravity should most certainly be LAID TO REST!

 

[Eyesaw]

Speaking of hawking radiation :
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

 

[urtalkinstupid]

If you don't feel like reading this, just skip it any answer my questions at the bottom.

Finally, someone who is with me 100% about how gravity can not be a pull. You have also explained the solar eclipse dilemma than I did. Now, with a better explanation I would like to ellaborate on your idea beatrix kiddo. The next question you people are going to ask is "How can neutrinos go through he moon?" Well, I think that is what you may ask. Just in case, I'll answer that for you. Neutrinos are approximately the size of an electron, except they a neutral charge. They arent affect by any type of electrical charge. With that being said, it can also be inferred that they can travel an atom with ease due to their neutral charge and size. Now, how do they maintain the same momentum as they started out with? This is totally hypothetical, but I've read in articles that when talking about neutrinos, the conservation of momentum plays no role. The neutrinos are able to collide inellastically (I'm sure I've mentioned this earlier) and not lose any energy in the process. Therefore, they are able to go through the moon during a solar eclipse, and they are able to be reemitted and on their path to earth. Simple as that.

Now, for another flaw that i have noted in the pull theory of gravity. ORBITS! Isn't that an exciting topic that you people are trying to get me with?? Well, the tables are turned. Mercury's orbit is weird. I know there is an explanation, but I have yet to even hear about it. So, will someone please tell me about that? Also, I asked earlier about Pluto's orbit. The Sun is losing mass every second due to its fusion processes that occur. Although, this mass loss seems to have little affect on the "pull" of gravity it causes or the amount of space-time curvature when dealing with close objects, but what about Pluto? Would a change in Pluto's orbit be noticed, if gravity were a pull? Even with Earth this phenomenon would be observed through the way day and night are altered. The time at which sun rise and sun set could be an observation that could tell whether or not this is happening or not. If gravity were a pull, Pluto's orbit would change first and be quite noticeable, and if not already, you could tell a difference in sun set and sun rise patterns from when the were first recorded.


Eyesaw, I see that Stephen has changed his mind about "information" falling into the black hole. The way i described the black hole ensures that every particle can be detected. If black holes were merely binary star systems that accelerate particles toward the center allowing them to collide, nothing is "lost". Everything is either in energy or mass form, all is there and none is lost. Feels good to know that my idea is actually consistent with another persons idea, but explained in a more logical manor. Why is everything visible aroudn a "black hole?" Maybe because light is not bent? Yes, I'm saying that light reaches this so called "black hole" and does not fall in.

Just in case you do not want to read that and just answer my questions, here they are:

1. Mercury's orbit?
2. Pluto's orbit in regards to the sun losing mass and causing less space-time curvature?
3. What is your definition of a singularity?
4. Do black holes really exist?


uhh...what

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Oh, Entropy! I see that you have doubts about my binary star system idea. Are you saying that black holes are not orbited by binary stars?

 

[Entropy]

Now, for another flaw that i have noted in the pull theory of gravity.

But gravity isn't a pull or a push like I said in my very first post. Its a simple effect of space-time.

Are you saying that black holes are not orbited by binary stars?

Oh there are some black holes that are orbited by other stars. But not all! Many black holes just have disks of gas spinning around them, so how do you explain that?

Why is everything visible aroudn a "black hole?" Maybe because light is not bent? Yes, I'm saying that light reaches this so called "black hole" and does not fall in.

Light is bent. It has been proven that the gravitational field of galaxies have bent light rays around them and it has been observed. Its also been proven that light is red-shifted by gravity. How do you explain that?

first of all, i totally agree with urtalkinstupid and the push theory of gravity. i understand why he says that a pull makes no sense in that there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle) so a large heavenly body, like the sun, "pulling" on a smaller body, say the earth, is also a hard thing to grasp. if gravity was indeed a pull, what would be its equal and opposite reaction? why haven't we detected it yet? gravity is caused by subatomic particles pelting the Earth on all sides. these particles come from the sun and other bodies surrounding our totally awesome planet (he he). you say that we should weigh a gram at night because we're not facing the sun, eh? like urtalkinstupid said neutrinos are coming at us from other sources and even though they are pretty far away, we are getting a constant stream of these subatomic particles, just like when we are facing the sun. if the moon crosses in front of the sun, the side of the Earth facing that occurrence will not feel gravity's push anymore than the other side because the moon partially blocks the neutrinos from the sun to the earth. however, these blocked particles are made up because the neutrinos are able to pass through the moon. thus, there isn't a really difference. now that I am up to speed allow me to say that black holes don't exist. urtalkinstupid i applaud you for accurately describing what we percieve as the event horizon of a black hole. those subatomic particle collisions can be quite the scientific tricksters. anything associated with the pull theory of gravity should most certainly be LAID TO REST!

Hmm... Some actually agreing with you and its there very first post. Look we know its you, you're not fooling anyone.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

But gravity isn't a pull or a push like I said in my very first post. Its a simple effect of space-time.

Yes, this is what allows objects to fall. If i recall correctly, falling is like being pulled. You throw an apple up, and when it falls, it is being pulled down. So, yes, you are still saying gravity is a pull.

Light is bent. It has been proven that the gravitational field of galaxies have bent light rays around them and it has been observed...Its also been proven that light is red-shifted by gravity.

Nothing is proven in science. The obsevered part, yes. It has not been proven that light is bent, or that light is red-shifted by gravity. Seeing you believe that, I'm assuming that you believe that photons have mass? I think they do, but by some, they are believed to have no mass.

Many black holes just have disks of gas spinning around them, so how do you explain that?

Quite simple actually. I think a more accurate description would be an ellipse. This elliptical spinning of gas aroudn the "black hole" can simply be described as emission and absorption. Black holes are noted to be found at the center of galaxies, in the middle of star clusters, and in binary star systems (like the super-massive black hole in our galaxy). So, I would like to say that all stars emitt more than they absorb, but this does not mean that they don't absorb at all. The stars exchange their gases within each other. NOTE: as I said earlier black holes are sometimes found in the middle of star clusters orbiting around no central body. Everything is said to have an eliptical orbit, and this elliptical orbit explains that elliptical shape of gases. I'm sure that you will find this hard to believe.

Before we jump to conclusions, I am not beatrix kiddo. I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.

I'm guessing that you can't answer any of my questions entropy?

 

[Entropy]

So, yes, you are still saying gravity is a pull.

No its not. Its not a force. It only appears to be "pulled" from your 4 dimensional perspective of the universe.

And if you do believe in the graviton then gravity isn't a pull. Just like when two charged particles are attracted to each other they emit photons in opposite directions to push themselves together. Gravitons would act in the same way. That would solve your aborbsion and emission problem.

Nothing is proven in science.

Oh don't even go there. Thats pathetic defense when you know you're wrong.

Seeing you believe that, I'm assuming that you believe that photons have mass? I think they do, but by some, they are believed to have no mass.

Just about everyone agrees photons have mass. They just have no mass when at rest, just like neutrinos.

and this elliptical orbit explains that elliptical shape of gases.

They appear elliptical in most pictures because you're looking at them from an angle. Just like when you tilt a plate and it "appears" narrower like an ellipse.

I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.

You don't know him but he is a friend? Its really hard to believe what you say when you condradict yourself so much.

I'm guessing that you can't answer any of my questions entropy?

But that in it's self is the only question you asked in your entire post? So I guess I can answer "all" of you're questions.

 

[russ_watters]

...there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle)

When you pull on a piece of string, what do you call the force in the wire?

 

[russ_watters]

First, I am not sure if gravity is pushing or pulling (but I don't think it really matters - what counts is the predictability. If both are identical - so what?).

Theoretically, just by following the "current" concept of gravity, you actually should be more "pulled" by the sun's gravity when on the sunfacing side of Earth compared to staying on the nightside (the diameter of Earth is something, at least !).

If we don't measure a difference, this could only mean the difference is too slight to notice (which would fit for both theories), or it would mean there is no difference (which would then mean, both theories are not adequate).

Or am I wrong here?

If so -> tell me!

Since the distance you are from the sun isn't much different on one side of the Earth from the other, the total force isn't much different. This isn't the issue though.

If a push from the sun was any significant influence on our gravity (and that is what has been suggested), then you'd notice a significant difference in your weight depending on the orientation of the sun.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters err the weight is only in a slight difference, but it is there. You need a tool that measures with more accuracy.

Weight is measured all the time with highly precise instruments. If there was a difference, it'd be measurable.

Also, you are saying both that the sun is a significant influence on our gravity and an insignificant influence on our gravity. You can't have it both ways. Either it is or it isn't a significant influence. I weigh 150 lb. If 149 pounds of that was due to solar pressure, then I'd weigh 1 pound at night. If 1 pound was due to solar pressure, then the other 149 pounds is due to something else. The first is clearly wrong. If the second is what you are implying, then tell us where the bulk of the gravitational force comes from. If your answer is the other stars, Janus already handled that, and it should be self evident - other stars are so far away, they couldn't have the effect you predict.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

russ_waters why don't you measure your mass with a very precise instrument during the day and with the same precise instrument that same night. Take note in the difference. The sun is significant influence on gravity, but it is not the only thing that affects gravity. I'm not belittling the sun's significance with that statement. I'm simply saying that other sources account for gravity on the earth. REMEMBER what I'm saying is NOT based on weight. Weight is the attractive force between two forces due to gravity. I do not support gravity as an attractive force. Maybe if you had a better understanding of neutrinos and how emission and absorption works, maybe you could have a feasible argument.

Can someone answer MY questions now, please?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

ok russ when u pull on the string u are actually pushing down on the sides of it and moving ur arm back.. I've thought of that too. the force in the wire is hmmm PUSH maybe??

 

[beatrix kiddo]

hey russ now answer me this: what is the equal and opposite reaction to gravity?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm

there u go stupid... it has really awesome info about neutrinos and the push theory of gravity

 

[beatrix kiddo]

wow.. lame. u think urtalkinstupid and i are one in the same? u can't prove ur failing point so u jump to that conclusion? maybe u should answer our questions about ur ideas of gravity instead of taking cheap shots at us.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

hahaha Entropy i just saw what you posted. Yes, i agree about the elliptical modification of cirlces when viewed at an angle. So, we are on the same level about gravity not being a pull?

Graviton's haven't even been detected, so why believe in them? Neutrinos, on the other hand, have been detected. Space-time hasn't even been proven to exist. Oh, light is bent, so that means space-time curvature is true. When light travels around a massive body it encounters the space-time curvature that the body emits and falls towards it, but the speed of light is able to escape, because the rate at which space is curved is significantly lower than the velocity of light only causing a bend.

Me, contradictive about who I know and who I do not know? Maybe if your reading comprehension skills were as good as your arguments (not saying much), then maybe you would see what I really said.

Before we jump to conclusions, I am not beatrix kiddo. I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.

Anywhere in there did I say I did not know beatrix kiddo? Stop being ignorant. I have questions, and you are unable to answer them; I'm assuming. Just in case you did not get my questions before hand, here they are again plus more:

1. The perihelion of Mercury?
2. Pluto's orbit as an effect of space-time curvature.
3. Definition of a singularity.
4. Difference between mass and weight? (since some of you are obviously confused)
5. Whether or not space-time curvature depends on mass, weight, or density? I've heard it is caused by all three, and all three are different concepts.

 

[Alkatran]

russ_waters why don't you measure your mass with a very precise instrument during the day and with the same precise instrument that same night. Take note in the difference. The sun is significant influence on gravity, but it is not the only thing that affects gravity. I'm not belittling the sun's significance with that statement. I'm simply saying that other sources account for gravity on the earth. REMEMBER what I'm saying is NOT based on weight. Weight is the attractive force between two forces due to gravity. I do not support gravity as an attractive force. Maybe if you had a better understanding of neutrinos and how emission and absorption works, maybe you could have a feasible argument.

The reaction to gravity is your pull on the opposite object. The Earth is pulling on the sun just as hard as the sun is pulling on the earth.

Also, A curve in space time is NOT pull OR push. It's just a straight line that appears curved to us. (See the bowling ball on a sheet analogy to a 2d person)