Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[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 arguement.

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 arguements (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 arguement.

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)

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

They both together have a force. It's not that one has a force, then the other has a force. The sun "pulls" on the Earth and the Earth "pulls" on the objects that are on the earth. When you throw a ball in the air, the ball pulls on the Earth while the Earth pulls on the ball?


What is the equal and opposite reaction to the curve of space and time?

 

[Alkatran]

They both together have a force. It's not that one has a force, then the other has a force. The sun "pulls" on the Earth and the Earth "pulls" on the objects that are on the earth. When you throw a ball in the air, the ball pulls on the Earth while the Earth pulls on the ball?


What is the equal and opposite reaction to the curve of space and time?

Force of Earth on ball = Ball's mass * Earth's mass* constant/ distance ^2
Force of ball one Earth = Ball's mass * Earth's mass* constant/ distance ^2
The only difference between them is they are exactly opposite in direction, thus the reaction.

The curve of space time isn't a force, so there doesn't need to be a reaction. But if you want you can see the ball's curving of space time as the reaction to the earth's... not that that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

The ball does not "pull" on the earth. It does not have enough mass to generate an attractive force if you are going by the pool model. Two objects pull as one if you want to throw in that equation. There is no opposite force. The pull that the Earth does on the ball, is the only pull in the system. WHAT is the opposite reacion of this pull. The ball doesn't pull on the Earth because its mass is, as I said before, is too small to generate a pull. Gravity is said to be one of the weakest of the four forces. So, if your object's mass is little, then it has little force, which means that since gravity is such a weak force, this force that the ball draws in is very little.

 

[Entropy]

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.

Oh these are the questions. Alright I can answer most of them.

1. What about mercury? Why is it the closest to the sun? Be more specific please.

2. Well you see actually all orbits are a little eliptical. This is because the sun isn't the only source of gravity. Other objects create gravity that can change the speed of a planet during its orbit there by changing the shape of its orbit. Other planets, moons, asteriods, impacts can all change an object's orbit from a circular one. Even some man made satalites have been put intensionally in eliptical orbits using good old equations that are in harmony with the space-time curvature theory of gravity.

3. A singularity is a point-like structure that is infinitely small and dimensionless. It was once though that black holes where singularities but is now mostly excepted that they are not. They are thought to be on the scale of strings.

4. Mass is a property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. Weight is the measure of how heavy something is.

5. It depends on mass because weight and volume are in themselves functions of mass. Here are the equations I'm sure you are familiar with them:

D = kg / {m^3}
W = kg*{m/{s^2}}

I hope that satifies you.

The ball does not "pull" on the earth. It does not have enough mass to generate an attractive force if you are going by the pool model.

Yes it does. Every thing with mass effects everything else with mass with some degree, its just that the ball effects the Earth very little. There is a difference between a little and not at all.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

1. The perihelion of Mercury?
2. Let me ellaborate on what answer I was seeking for out of this question. If the sun is losing mass, it's reach of space-time curvature should be reduced. Althouh this change is unoticed at Earth's distance. I'm sure a change in Pluto's orbit. I'm sure Pluto should show some kind of "drift" away from it's average elliptical orbit.
3. I heard that a singularity has infinite density. How is this so? Ellaborate on ths string. How does it have such a strong gravitational pull?
4. I agree with you on the mass definition, but I'd have to disagree on your definition of weight. I thought that you would know what weight was since you are a believer in the pull of gravity.
5. If not dependent on density, why is it said the black hole is so dense, that it creates a strong space-time curvature?

Satisfied...NO.


Everything attracts in a system. The pull that both of the objects have is the action...what is the reaction?

 

[terrabyte]

the reaction is they're constantly falling towards each other <duh>

 

[Entropy]

1. The perihelion of Mercury? What do you mean? Perihelion means closest to the sun or any other celestial object. Do you want to know why it is the closest to the sun? I'm afraid I might be unfamiliar with the term you are talking about, if you mean something else.

2. Simply because it is at a greater distance does not mean the change in effects are multipled. It is possible that it is drifting away by some amount and isn't measureable with current technology.

3. Look singularity is just a word. Yes a singularity would have infinite density, but its not thought by most that they exist anymore, atleast in black holes. I am not an expert on strings. I'm sure there are others on this forum that are more qualified to answer this. But I'll give you a rough definition. Strings are extremely small objects that are theorized to make up all particles. There are "open" and "closed" and all strings have properties in the way they act that intern determains the properties of the particles they make up. Perhaps you should look up on "M-theory", "String Theory", or look on the Strings forum.

4. I provided my definition. And I do not believe that gravity is a push or pull. Again its a product of space-time. If you don't understand it I don't know what to tell you. I guess all I can say is try and read up more on it and maybe you'll grasp what we're saying.

5. Simply because black holes are dense does not mean density causes space-time curvature. Let me try to explain. The gravitational effects are stronger as you approach the center of an object. This is why fusion only occures at the center of the sun. Gravity isn't strong enough at the center of the sun to induce fusion but it is strong enough near the center to produce it. You see as a black hole strinks (changes density) the effects on its boundry becomes stronger but the overall amount of space-time that is warped remains the same. Note this equation that gives the effects of gravity at a point given the mass:

G = {GM}/{r^2} <---- That first G should be a little "g" having trouble with this
G = 6.67 x {10^{-11}} {Nm^2} / {kg^2}

But in a way the shape of space-time curvature is effected by the distubution of mass over a volume. But mass what I mean is mass is what causes space-time curvature.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

1. The irregular orbit of Mercury.
2. I'm trying to conlude that there is not a difference at all.
3. Ok, does a string that is supposedly composing this black have finite mass or finite volume? That's what I want to know.
4. Weight is the measure of how much gravity pull on a mass.
5. If you don't believe in push or pull but in space-time curvature, how are we anchored on this earth? I'll ellaborate on this onc ei get the answer to question #3.

 

[terrabyte]

Even if you compress a soccer ball down to the size of a needlepoint, it still has the mass of a soccer ball <which decidedly does not warp space very much>

compress a nebula or galaxy down to that size and we're talking some SERIOUS mass and VERY evident gravitational effects on space.

 

[terrabyte]

5. it's NOT a pull OR a push, he's said it like 4 times. we're "anchored" on this Earth because it causes a curvature in space such that we're always at an "incline". moving UP the incline WOULD require force.

 

[terrabyte]

"pull" is just a term of convenience for a evident source of force being in the same direction as its exertion.

since this is not really a force, just a natural "law of the universe", it's not really a "pull"

 

[urtalkinstupid]

the reaction is they're constantly falling towards each other <duh>

That is still apart of the action

Yes, I agree with you that pull is just a term of convience. There is no such thing as a pull, yet many people associate gravity with it. Einstein used this pull model to describe space-time curvature, so space-time curvature is this convience term "pull" expressed in a different way.

 

[Entropy]

1. The irregular orbit can be explained just like eliptical orbits can be explained. Other gravitational sources and celestial impacts change the speed of the planet changing its orbit from what should be a circle in idle conditions into an irregular orbit.

2. Okay, but there isn't any observational evidence to say that Pluto is drifting away, coming closers or staying exactly the same. So until we can measure any change we won't know whos right. And that probably won't happen for a long long time.

3. Yes they have finite mass and finite density.

4. I think "weight is how much gravity affects something" would be a more accurate definition. Atleast according to the space-time theory of gravity.

5. With this you are dealing with a realm above are normal 4 dimensional world in which we see space. So it can be hard to imagine if you're not use to it. Anchored is just a term.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

It's obvious that you have never heard of Mercury's orbit. Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place, but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces. I have come to the conlcusion that space-time does not rely on mass, but it relies on density. The definition that I gave you of mass and your new one are similar. May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?

 

[Alkatran]

It's obvious that you have never heard of Mercury's orbit. Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place, but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces. I have come to the conlcusion that space-time does not rely on mass, but it relies on density. The definition that I gave you of mass and your new one are similar. May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?

Space time doesn't rely on density it relies on mass! You can't come up with conclusions like the one you just made out of the blue! Although, I will admit that very dense objects will have their space-time curvature focused more towards their center.

And yes, space-time does bend light, this has been proven by observing the positions of stars in a solar eclipse. (The stars are a at a "different" position because the sun bends the light which would normally miss us)

There are other proofs for space-time too, like... oh... I don't know.. Relativity?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

WOW, nothing can be proven in science; it's all THEORETICAL. No, it would seem more logical that space-time be the result of dense objects rather than massive objects. Relativity does not prove ANYTHING. General Relativity was based off of Newton's theories. Newton proposed gravity, but he did not know how it worked. Einstein, through Newton, explained this form of gravity. He did a poor job of doing so. Mathematics doesn't mean anything. You can manipulate a mathematical equation how you wanted to make it work. Do they have an equation for gravitational lensing? Oh, light is not constant.

Mathematics is a human invention and is not the ultimate logic of the Universe.

 

[Alkatran]

Sorry, I should have used the word "support" instead of theory. My point is that relativity supports space-time curvature.

 

[Entropy]

WOW, nothing can be proven in science; it's all THEORETICAL.

Relativity does not prove ANYTHING.

You don't have to point that out. Why don't you just save us the time and just come out and say realitivity is wrong.

No, it would seem more logical that space-time be the result of dense objects rather than massive objects.

How is it more logical? Please explain.

He did a poor job of doing so.

How did he do a poor job? Explain?

Mathematics doesn't mean anything. You can manipulate a mathematical equation how you wanted to make it work.

Of course math is useless! I mean its not like are modern world is based off of math! Surely math doesn't really mean anything. Its not like electricity, cars, planes, spacecraft s, computers, phones, electronics, buildings, bridges, roads, medicine, boats, agriculture, weather forcasting, economics, construction and especially astrophysics have anything to do with math. People don't really use math, they just go with there instincts and what they feel is right when launching a probe to Mars or calculating the proper dose for a new drug. Just like how you feel your theory is right without any support.

Do they have an equation for gravitational lensing? Oh, light is not constant.

As a matter of fact the do: http://www.astro.soton.ac.uk/~crk/PH227/node43.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Mooney
Mathematics is a human invention and is not the ultimate logic of the Universe.

Who is Stephen Mooney? Is he suppost to be some brillant genius that everyone looks up to?


By the way urtalkingstupid, what type of math courses have you taken? I'm just wondering what type of eduction you've had.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

When I said "He did a poor job of doing so," that's exactly what I meant.

He based his experiments in General Relativity on Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton did not have a thorough understanding of how gravity worked. Hence, how gravity is so poorly preceived as. How is someone able to ellaborate on something that is not even understood? You say that you don't believe that gravity is a pull or push, but gravity is really the effect of space-time curvature? Well, let me squash your little precious belief. Space-time curvature was just another way of explaining the pull affect of gravity; they are the same. By saying that you do not believe in gravity being a push or a pull, you also say that there isn't a force governing our attraction to the earth. What kind of force is associated with space-time curvature. By force I mean vector force like up, down, left, right? You are also going against gravity being one of the four natural forces. So, it seems that you go against Einstein in a lot of things also.

Now, on to how Einstein did not describe the behavior of light very well. Light is not constant; IT IS RELATIVE. Everything is relative. Nothing is constant. Einstein says that light keeps its constant velocity due to length contraction and time dilation. How can something physically get smaller as it goes faster? Does it lose length just out of nowhere? The Lorentz Transformation is another mathematical fallacy. The shortening of the objects is just something our mind sees, because it can not calculate something that is moving fast with accuracy. The speed of light DOES depend on the velocity of the source or the object. If you were moving towards light at a high speed wouldn't that light be moving towards you faster? You would say, "No." Why? The object goes through length contraction making it shrink, therefore the light has to travel farther to make up for that speed. WEIRD!

Density seems more logical. You question me on that statement. Now, I'll ellaborate. Take a huge star. It runs out of fuel and is left with a core that gravity acts upon. Before gravity takes effect, the sapce-time curvature that the star produces is not intense enough to bend light, but once that star condenses and becomes more dense, the space-time curvature is more intense, though that object has the same mass. Something less dense cause less space-time curvature, while something more dense cause more space-time curvature.

That is a well defined equation based on a theory that should be thrown out. I think it should be density NOT mass that affects anything.

Stephen Mooney is a man who recently made a paradigm of the universe. It explains a lot of things that Newton or Einstein tried to explain, but as I stated earlier, they failed to give a good description of what was happening. http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/

Actually, I'm fixing to be as junior in high school. I just finished pre-cal this past school year. This upcoming school year I'm skipping Calculus AB AP, and I'm going straight to Calculus BC AP. I've only had one year of academic physics also, and I took physics in 9th grade. This coming school year I'm taking Physics B AP. So, I'm sure you have more knowledge of math than I. I'm sure you are also much older than I.

Now, may I ask you a question that will reveal your intelligence? What is the highest level of grammar that you have completed?

I mean its not like are modern world is based off of math! Surely math doesn't really mean anything.

I think what you meant was "our." heh

Here's another link. The only thing I do not support on this site is that they believe in black holes, but I can't be too picky.
http://gravity.ontheinter.net/

 

[beatrix kiddo]

hey entropy, alkatran, and terrabyte! are u aware that Newton's third law has to deal with force? if you don't believe gravity is a force, then why give me the equal and opposite reaction to it? that right there shows me you are wavering in ur inferior beliefs. HAHAHA! i will come out and say that i think einstein was wrong, his beliefs about gravity were wrong, and u are all wrong. u should bow to the superiority of my beliefs on gravity...

 

[terrabyte]

"Density" has nothing to do with the amount of bending of space-time other than reducing the distances one can achieve in relation to another object. Say you have a 1kg metal weight and you also have a 1kg balloon of air. they are both exerting the same "pull" (space curvature "footprint") but you can put another object MUCH closer to the center of mass on the metal weight, so the "pull" is much more evident.

it's all about mass.

we all know that u are probably in ur late 40's arguing with a couple of teenagers about gravity and stuff

he's not arguing, he's "educating" you. And from last i read, he's not much older than you...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Let's say that you condense that 1kg of "air" (not that specific are we?) to make it more dense. The amount of space-time curvature is increased. Same mass, less volume, more space-time curvature.

 

[Entropy]

wow entropy... i just read how u called out urtalkinstupid's math level and I've got to say real mature.. we all know that u are probably in ur late 40's arguing with a couple of teenagers about gravity and stuff. i hope i will one day be as successful as u when i turn 49.. living with mom, etc.

I was mearly curious. I just wanted to know if understood what he was saying about math because I find it hard for anyone to think math is meaningless and really know a lot about it.

Whats so immature about it? Lots of people ask what other people's math level is so they can better explain things to them on their level. I'm sorry that you're so offended by it.

Just so you know I'm 17 and about to be a senior in high school. I'm taking AP Physics C next year along with AP Calculus (even though I already thought myself Calculus). It was to bad I couldn't graduate this year by going into duel in rollment, but since I was in IB (International Baccalaureate) I had to complete some other non-academic courses (i.e. life management and PE). I am also in the physics club and JETS (although it was canceled for some reason last year). And there are people over 40 on these forums (including mods and mentors) that may find what you said offensive. Real professional physicists spend there time here and seriously exchange knowledge and develop theories here.

Actually, I'm fixing to be as junior in high school. I just finished pre-cal this past school year. This upcoming school year I'm skipping Calculus AB AP, and I'm going straight to Calculus BC AP. I've only had one year of academic physics also, and I took physics in 9th grade. This coming school year I'm taking Physics B AP. So, I'm sure you have more knowledge of math than I. I'm sure you are also much older than I.

Wow, you think I'm a lot older? I'm humbled. :)

I think what you meant was "our." heh

Your one to talk. Let's look at all your mistakes.

Yes, i agree about the elliptical modification of cirlces[/color] when viewed at an angle.

Circlces? What?!

WHAT is the opposite reacion[/color] of this pull.

Reacion? Do you mean reaction?

Althouh[/color] this change is unoticed[/color] at Earth's distance.

Its spelled "although" and "unnoticed".

I'll ellaborate on this onc ei[/color] get the answer to question #3.

Is it really that hard to spell "one". And since when was there an "e" in "I".

I think I made my point. Are we here to talk about insignificate grammar errors or physics?

He based his experiments in General Relativity on Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton did not have a thorough understanding of how gravity worked. Hence, how gravity is so poorly preceived as.

Are you saying Newton's equations don't work? Because if they don't then why aren't satellites falling from space and why are we able to launch probes with such accuracy? It seems that although Newton didn't exactly know what gravity was he was sure able to describe its effects well.

Now, on to how Einstein did not describe the behavior of light very well. Light is not constant; IT IS RELATIVE. Everything is relative. Nothing is constant. Einstein says that light keeps its constant velocity due to length contraction and time dilation. How can something physically get smaller as it goes faster?

In length contraction it doesn't get physically smaller. It appears smaller for an observer. And light doesn't keep it's velocity due to length contraction or time dilation.

So you're just assuming everything is relative?

The Lorentz Transformation is another mathematical fallacy. The shortening of the objects is just something our mind sees, because it can not calculate something that is moving fast with accuracy. The speed of light DOES depend on the velocity of the source or the object. If you were moving towards light at a high speed wouldn't that light be moving towards you faster? You would say, "No." Why? The object goes through length contraction making it shrink, therefore the light has to travel farther to make up for that speed. WEIRD!

The speed of light does not change. If you are speeding toward an observer and you shoot a beam of light the light's wavefront still only moves at c but when the observer "sees" it, the peaks in the EM wave move pass him faster, or in other words the light wave's frequency is blue-shifted.

This is how the police can see how fast you're going on the highway by knowing at what frequecy the infared beam they shoot at you is, and then see how much the frequency is shifted when the atoms in you're car absorb and then emit it back to the ray gun.

You should learn more about this in AP physics B along with relativity.

Light doesn't not behave like marcoscopic objects at slow everyday speeds you are use to in everyday life. It hard for me to put into words all the quantum mechanical process that go along with emitting light at high speeds. Maybe someone else can describe it better than I can.

Same mass, less volume, more space-time curvature.

No its the same amount of curvature just compressed into a smalled space.

 

[terrabyte]

Case in point, take a soccer ball, stand 1 ft away from it.

now don't move at all but "densify" the soccer ball as much as you want but don't move it from its center of mass. it will not change the amount it "pulls" on me one bit.

you can compress that mass down to a singularity and still i would not feel the slightest bit more "pull" from that ball

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, you dug deep into past posts! Nice work, Entropy.

I'm taking AP Physics C next year along with AP Calculus (even though I already thought myself Calculus).

.

How did you accomplish this?

No, I'm not saying Newton's equations do not work; I'm saying that his equations are not an explanation of what is really happening. Even you say that is not what is happening. "Gravity is not a push or pull; it is space-time curvature that counts for all of actions and reactions."

The speed of light is NOT constant. Why can't cops get accurate readings if they are moving at a constant velocity? www.aliceinphysics.com

If it is the same, why is it when a star condenses to a one dimensional string it has the same mas sof the star but more space-time curvature resulting in a more powerful gravitational pull?

 

[Entropy]

How did you accomplish this?

I opened a Calculus book and learned it. I read just about every book on math or science I can get my hands on.

The speed of light is NOT constant. Why can't cops get accurate readings if they are moving at a constant velocity?

Okay let's say someone is speeding at 80 mph and a cop is going 50 mph. If the cop trys to make a reading then it will read 30 mph because from the cop's inertial frame of reference the speeding car is going 30 mph. Thats the whole principle of relativity.

but more space-time curvature resulting in a more powerful gravitational pull?

It doesn't have a stronger gravitational "pull". Its just that a smaller area of space is being warped by the same magnitude of mass.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

All-in-all, light is not constant. Get it through your heads. Einstein is not one of the best physicists. His ideas shouldn't be grasped so close to your dear little chest. Alice Law Try going there, absorb some information, and tell me what you think. Try keeping an open mind when viewing that source.

Take Stephen Hawking for instance. He was the cause for this theory of Hawking's Radiation. He proposed this theory as a way to explain the deteriation of black holes. Also stating that once information goes in, it can not come back out. Now, he is saying that this is not true. A theory that was viewed to be taking place, was crushed by the man who proposed it. Does that mean anything to you? In my proposal of gravity not being a pull, I noted that black holes do not exist. This being said, there is no reason for "information" to even become lost.

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from? I mean so thorough that my HEAD EXPLODES.

Have you looked at any of the links that I have provided you?

Gravity is not a pull or a manifestation of curves in space-time.

 

[Entropy]

All-in-all, light is not constant. Get it through your heads. Einstein is not one of the best physicists. His ideas shouldn't be grasped so close to your dear little chest. Alice Law Try going there, absorb some information, and tell me what you think. Try keeping an open mind when viewing that source.

Yes I've looked at it and I'm haven't changed my opinions because those are thought experiments that are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because that's not what happens in real life. Similar experiments have been done and they support Einstein's theories.

There is a thread where is this being discussed, there are people there that are much more knowledgeable than me, perhaps they have put in a way that you can more easily understand. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32600

Take Stephen Hawking for instance. He was the cause for this theory of Hawking's Radiation. He proposed this theory as a way to explain the deteriation of black holes.

No he didn't. Until then it was thought that black holes didn't radiated anything.

Also stating that once information goes in, it can not come back out. Now, he is saying that this is not true. A theory that was viewed to be taking place, was crushed by the man who proposed it.

It wasn't really a theory as much as it was a wager. Hawking simply made a bet with Kip Thorne that information would be lost inside of black holes. He lost the bet. What's your point here? That people can be wrong? Does that some how make Einstein wrong as well? Its not like information loss was some fundamental theory that's shattering modern physics.

This being said, there is no reason for "information" to even become lost.

So? Simply because we met bumps along the way trying to explain the universe means we should simply throw all we know away and start over?

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from?

For the millionth time! They don't! The warp is more intense but its over a smaller area!

Have you looked at any of the links that I have provided you?

Yep, everyone.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

uhhhh we all know that hawking was the first to propose that black holes radiate. urtalkinstupid is saying that this concept of hawking's radiation lead to the realization that black holes eventually "evaporate". i doubt that hawking's bet loss was meant to sway ur opinion about einstein... but it does show that maybe there are other things in astronomy that people need to reconsider.. like oh GR and SR.

 

[terrabyte]

you're not knowledgeable enough about the subject, or other subjects in this field to make such bold and sweeping statements and expect people to take you seriously.

if I'm working on my car and the kid next door comes by and says "hey if you put TWO batteries in your car it will run faster!" i'd tell him to piss off and go play Pokemon with his friends

but if the kid next door has a father who's an auto mechanic who works for Nascar and he comes over and says "hey your fuel seems to be running a little rich, it's having trouble turning over, you might want to adjust your choke and carbuerator" i might listen to what he's saying

 

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

oh here u go stupid(urtalkin): http://www.hermograph.com/science/mercuryd.htm

 

[terrabyte]

you don't have to know more than ME, you have to know more than AUTHORITIES on the SUBJECT.

putting that beside the point, I'm going to give you a tip. read and UNDERSTAND the current accepted theories from people with degrees and years more education than you before you embark on your trek to debunk them and rewrite the universe to suit your views.

you don't even understand space curvature and it's VERY basic, boilerplate stuff.

i think they even teach it to third graders are the natural science museum

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

 

[Janus]

.

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from? I mean so thorough that my HEAD EXPLODES.

They don't. And no one familiar with the subject says that they do.

 

[jcsd]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

Or perhaps a pair of gibbering fools, no?

 

[Alkatran]

Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

Alright, first of all, observations were being made that suggested the Earth wasn't flat. I believe that these were made very early on. Observations such as why ships disappeared over the horizon, etc.

Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull? Looks to me like there's NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.

 

[Janus]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

As in being wrong, and clinging to wrong beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) until your death bed?

(note: Columbus did not set out to prove the world round, he set out to prove that it was smaller than it is(and was generally thought to be in his time). He hit an unknown(to him) continent, thought he had reached India, and believed that he had reached India to his dying day.)

 

[Entropy]

entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

I admitted that I didn't not know about the irregularity of Mercury's orbit. I've tried to search for some references to it without success. But thank you for that link I'm reading it right now and my answer is the same.

The author claims that the problem is that Mercury has an elliptical orbit without a a gravitational source at one of it's foci. The thing is that you don't need to have an actual object there, simply a gravitation field, like from a distant object like another planet.

Another problem the author says:

But Mercury has a very eccentric orbit and it is millions of miles closer at perihelion than it is at aphelion, its farthest distance from the Sun. So it really has to move FAST there to stay in orbit. When Mercury is that close, the sun's gravity is even stronger. In Einstein's words, the curvature of space-time is greater here so Mercury "feels" like there is an extra mass here. That extra mass feels like it is trying to pull the planet inward. By giving Mercury this pull every three months, the orbit is kicked a bit, making it rotate very slowly in space. Remember our marble in the well? Suppose we give it a slight pull inwards every time it gets a little deeper in the well but not enough to pull it all the way in. The marble comes back out but not quite on the path it would have taken if we hadn't interfered. That's what the sun's gravity is doing. Newton's gravity is much simpler than Einstein's gravity but Einstein's cleared up the mystery of the orbit turning the wrong amount!

This is where he makes a mistake. As Mercury comes closer to the sun (i.e. gravity is stronger on it) it is falling into the sun a little so to speak but something else occurs with this. It speeds up as it falls therefore being "sling shotted" around the sun. The momentum it gained as it sped up allows it to continue on its predicted orbital path. This has been observed with just about all celestial bodies. Most commonly comets because they have very eccentric orbits.

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like.

Acutally most cultures through out time didn't believe the world was flat at all. Very few ancient peoples believed in a flat Earth.

Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

What missing mass? Not all physicists believe that there needs to be dark matter in order to make up for missing mass. Many thought there needed to be missing mass because stars at the ends of galaxies moved just as fast as ones in the center. But many now theorize that stars at the ends of galaxies only appear to be moving faster at the moment because of certain types of waves moving though the galaxies.

The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force?

You mean momentum from the Big Bang? And it has been brought into question whether the universe is actually explanding (see below).

Galaxies moving away from each other?

Actually that too has been brought into question because gravity can red-shift light and make objects appear as if they are moving away at high speeds. Along with other sources of red-shift it is very possible that red-shift my not be a good tool for measuring objects' speeds.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull?

Alkatran, I threw in space-time curvature as an alternative to the push or pull theories. I was not saying that space-time curvature had forces involved with it.

Janus, yes, I understand what you are saying. New question: How do things fall into black holes faster than they fall into massive stars given the fact that black holes are just a denser version of the neutron star they previously were? I don't know how to expalain exactly to get the answer I am seeking.

Entropy, so, I'm assuming that you are going against Einstein and his cosmological constant? By missing, I didn't necessarily undetectable. I was only reiterating from sources that I have encountered. I know there is no such thing as missing mass. The mass that is missing is theorized to be in the form of neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles. The universe isn't even expanding. Once again, I was only reiterating sources that go by theories proposed by Einstein. The Big Bang never happened. The red-shift that is associated with "gravity" having an affect on light. Is this caused by gravitational pull or rotating galaxies giving off gravitational fields? If I'm not mistaken, does something with space-time curvature give off gravitational fields when it is rotating?

jcsd, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether that opinion be right or wrong.

Now, as for a better explanation for Mercury's odd orbit:

It's known that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is limited in its capacity to represent gravity. It required Relativity theory to express the situation with the advance in the perihelion of Mercury. However, the relativity is with the emission capacity of Mercury and the density of the emission of the Sun as Mercury passes the Sun at perihelion. At this point Mercury attains a state of decreased absorption of emission, which results in a slight decrease its attraction to the Sun. This is the reason for the advance in its perihelion.

I already know you people are going to disregard what this guy says.

P.S. Alkatran, there are differences between push, pull, and space-time curvature. Hope you guys can at least agree with me on this one.