Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[terrabyte]

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.

they DON'T as we've been saying for the last 4 pages or so.

Assume a solid mass the size of the sun exists somewhere. you're floating 1 mile off its surface. the "pull" you feel from that object is a given amount, generally felt as your "weight".

Compress that "sun" mass down to the size of a tennis ball. now you're 50,000 miles off its surface (whatever the freaking radius of the sun may be) and you STILL feel the same pull, because the mass has NOT changed only the density.

however you CAN travel farther TOWARDS that mass, creating a stronger pull than the 1 mile distance you could travel in the "before" situation.

it's like you have a huge funnel and a big ball. The ball takes up a lot of space that can't be used by other objects riding on the funnel <orbits>. you compress that ball and it fits farther down inside the funnel, increasing the available usable space of the funnel, yet it does not change the funnel itself, or the funnel's effect on other objects riding on it.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

So, why can't the normal star bendlight, but a black hole can bend light?

 

[terrabyte]

all mass bends light

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

 

[terrabyte]

to clarify, the light being "bent" is far closer to the black hole's total mass than the non compressed same mass as a star

 

[urtalkinstupid]

That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?

 

[terrabyte]

exactly. proximity is decidedly the most CRITICAL point of the mass / gravity relationship.

just like two magnets sitting on a table 1 ft apart exert a pull on each other a measured amount, put them 1/2 that distance apart and the force exerted upon each other increases at a geometric scale. NOTHING in the magnets is changing to make the force different, only the distance between the elements in the experiment.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts. So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.

 

[Entropy]

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?

The gravitational red-shift is caused by anything with gravity, rotating or not. If something is rotating it will still have gravity.

Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts.

Yes, but they both follow the inverse square rule and that's the point.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?

 

[jcsd]

That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?

A black hole and a star of the same mass have the same vacuum solutions (all else being equal) to Einstein's field equations, it's only when you start to examine the metric inside the star that you start to see a diffrence. The denisty of the object matters inside of the object though not necessarily outside the object.

 

[Entropy]

So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?

Yes. It changes its frequency so its velocity stays the same.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Ok, I have not studied gravity's affect on light, so that just came from logic. So, are you able to ellaborate on what I said to terrabyte?

 

[Simons]

forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Correct! Although, I'm not a believer in the affects of gravity has on light, but I will revert my mind to pull gravity or inclination of space-time. You have your facts straight referring to Doppler Affect. Gravity slows down light, because it "supposedly" bends the light. So, in order to keep its constant velocity, light's frequency tends to be seen as red. Same with blue, except light is viewed as going faster and must change frequency to slow down its speed.

 

[terrabyte]

So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.

no, density is not part of the equation, distance is :D

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Janus is correct about Columbus. In the 15th century all educated people knew that the Earth was a sphere- and, as far as geography goes, that would include sea captains. In fact, 2000 years before Columbus Aristarchus had calculated the size of the earth.

Columbus was one of a minority who, while aware that the Earth was a sphere, believed it was much smaller than Aristarchus had calculated. Columbus' argument was similar to what we see here all the time. The known world at that time was much smaller than Aristarchus' size. Columbus argued that it "didn't make sense" for all land to be on one side of the earth. Apparently the possiblity of large undiscovered land masses didn't occur to him.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Thanks for the history lesson. My teacher didn't explain it like that; I never did like my WHAP teacher.

 

[terrabyte]

know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.

density is accounted for in the "distance"

as long as you are "exterior" to the object, no matter how "dense" it is, it does not change the gravitational "pull" on you.

you have to remember an object is not simply itself, but a comglomerate of all its particles. when we say "mass" of an object, we're talking about the combined mass of all its particles.

each particle "pulls" and it's the total average or net "pull" that we observe on a macro scale. Going back to the prior example, if you took that sun that you were 1 mile above and compressed it, the net pull on you would not change if the distances between you and the center of mass did not change. particles on the far side of that "sun" would come closer towards the center, increasing the "pull" on you, but particles that were on YOUR side would also move away from you towards the center, cancelling it all out.

 

[Alkatran]

About the changing of size keeping gravity the same: Are you sure about that?

Consider 3 particles making up an object. Particle A is 1 meter away, B is 2, C is 3, the gravity from each (they are the same mass) is m/1 + m/4 + m/9 = 36m/36 + 9m/36 + 4m/36 = 49m/36

Now if they are condensed to the same position with the same center: gravity = m/4+m/4+m/4 = 3m/4
49/36m-3/4m = 0.61 m
(3m/4 == 49m/36) = false

Explain, please?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

So, you are agreeing that gravitational pull does change? I just got back from work, so I'm not aware of what you are saying.

 

[Alkatran]

I guess I am. I'm asking if I made a mistake.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, itself evident that you are asking the WRONG person. Don't ask me, because I obviously have no knowledge on this subject as you people say.

Now, this whole scenario would make more sense if the push theory were applied. In push theory, things that are more dense absorb more material. Although i don't believe in black holes, let's use one of those as an example. A black hole is now said to be composed of a one dimensional string containing the mass of a neutron star. This is highly densed, therefore it attracts a lot of neutrinos. As neutrinos pass through the black hole they are blocked, and they are never remitted. This can aslo describe gravitational lensing. As light passes over a massive object, it is bent by the force of neutrinos. Neutrinos pass through the massive object that light passes over every second. Each neutrino that passes through loses momentum (yea, earlier I said they didn't lose momentum, but that has to do with when they are produced during fusion). So the neutrinos with less momentum are hitting the light on the bottom side, while neutrinos withore momentum hit the light on the top causing a bend in the light. Sound logical?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran are u using the equation F=G (M1 x M2/ S) where S is the distance btw two objects squared??

 

[terrabyte]

according to the math you did, compresssion REDUCES space curvature as measured from a stationary location.

i can't see that as being right, but i can't find a flaw in the formula either, Need a Big-head user to supply their thoughts on that one. :(

 

[terrabyte]

Beatrix: yes that's what he's using assuming M2 <us> is 1.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran ur equation shows that condensing reduces the effects of gravity and that isn't correct

 

[beatrix kiddo]

terrabyte i just read ur post.. not trying to be redundant

 

[beatrix kiddo]

the math appears to make sense but theoretically, black holes have been infinitely condensed to infinite densities and they effect gravity more than any other object known in the universe... there must be some unnoticed error

 

[Alkatran]

alkatran ur equation shows that condensing reduces the effects of gravity and that isn't correct

Yes, that's what it shows, and from what I've been reading that's wrong. So my question is what am I doing wrong? I have no intent of "throwing over" gravity, I just want to know my error in thinking! Maybe it's the fact that the object isn't spherical in nature...?

I'll write a quick program to calculate hundreds of points instead of 3 and see what comes up.

 

[Alkatran]

*edit* Oh my god, the quote tag destroyed all the indentation.. trying PHP.*
*ooo colorful*
Alright, using this program (written quickly in visual basic):

Option Explicit
Const NumPoints As Long = 10000
Const ObserverDistance As Single = 5
Const NumTests As Long = 5
Private Type Point
    X As Single
    Y As Single
    Z As Single
End Type

Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim A As Long
Dim B As Long
Dim Total As Single
Dim TotalComp As Single
Dim Angle1 As Single
Dim Angle2 As Single
    
    Randomize Timer
    'Loop once for each test
    For B = 1 To NumTests
        Total = 0
        TotalComp = 0
        For A = 1 To NumPoints
            'Random angles (in radians)
            Angle1 = Rnd * 6.28318
            Angle2 = Rnd * 6.28318
            'uncompressed
            Total = Total + CalculateForce(GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, 1))
            'compressed
            TotalComp = TotalComp + CalculateForce(GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, 0.5))
        Next A
        Debug.Print Format(Total, "0.000") & ", " & Format(TotalComp, "0.000")
        Debug.Print "Difference: " & Format(Abs(Total - TotalComp), "0.000")
    Next B
    'End the program
    Unload Me
End Sub
Private Function CalculateForce(ByRef It As Point) As Single
    'Calculate inverse distance from observer
    'g*m = 1 for simplicity
    CalculateForce = 1 / Sqr((It.X - ObserverDistance) ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2 + It.Z ^ 2)
End Function
Private Function GeneratePoint(ByVal Angle1 As Single, ByVal Angle2 As Single, ByVal Distance As Single) As Point
    'Create and return a random point
    GeneratePoint.X = Distance * Cos(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
    GeneratePoint.Y = Distance * Sin(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
    GeneratePoint.Z = Distance * Sin(Angle2)
End Function

which generates 10000 random points around 0,0,0 at a distance of 1, and 1/2, I have received the following results:

1988.912, 1996.801
Difference: 7.889
1993.517, 1999.209
Difference: 5.691
1987.858, 1996.431
Difference: 8.573
1992.025, 1998.372
Difference: 6.346
1991.595, 1998.296
Difference: 6.701

Of course I did more than one run, but I found that there was always a difference between 4 and 10. (Actually, I find it odd that it varies at all..)

 

[Entropy]

As neutrinos pass through the black hole they are blocked, and they are never remitted. This can aslo describe gravitational lensing. As light passes over a massive object, it is bent by the force of neutrinos.

That doesn't make sence. Because massive objects don't attract neutrinos in you push theory.

the math appears to make sense but theoretically, black holes have been infinitely condensed to infinite densities and they effect gravity more than any other object known in the universe... there must be some unnoticed error

First off, I will say yet again, black holes do not have infinite densities. The idea of a singularity as been abondoned by most. Second, simply because infinities are involved doesn't necessarily suggest something is incorrent.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

please give me a source that shows "most" ppl have given up on the singularity and yes infinite density would prove it wrong because it would mean that an object of such enormous density (a black hole) would effect gravity less than the star (not as dense) it came from

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Gravity

Nice programming Alkatran. Do you have any explanation for the variance? The pull model of gravity is so complicated and has many flaws. Push theory is superior.

density is accounted for in the "distance"

Using the equations:
F_g=G\frac{m_1m_2}{d^2} and density=\frac{m}{v}

You are saying that d=v? How can density be accounted for in the "distance" of the F_g equation?

Entropy, sorry, you've failed to understand me. It's not attractiong of neutrinos. More dense objects absorb neutrinos. If you have a fairly dense object next to a less dense object, the fairly dense object absorbs more neutrinos causing the ones to be reemitted to have less momentum. This allows the less dense object to be pushed to the dense object, because the neutrinos impacting the other side of the less dense object is higher than the side of the less dense object that is being impacted by neutrinos that are being remitted with less momentum from the fairly dense object. My theory is not "pull" either it's push. It relies on density not mass. I should have not said "massive" object but dense object. I apologize for my error. No object attracts neutrinos, because all objects attract neutrinos. The density is what determines how many of those neutrinos are absorbed and reemitted.

I'm horrible at explaining what I'm trying to express. Sorry for that.

 

[Alkatran]

Nice programming Alkatran. Do you have any explanation for the variance? The pull model of gravity is so complicated and has many flaws. Push theory is superior.



Using the equations:
F_g=G\frac{m_1m_2}{d^2} and density=\frac{m}{v}

You are saying that d=v?

No, he's saying that since we're really looking at the distances of each and every particle, that the sum of all the force equations gives the density.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Can you explain that more? Density has nothing to do with distance. Where does volume come in? Each and every particle has volume.

 

[Entropy]

Entropy, sorry, you've failed to understand me. It's not attractiong of neutrinos. More dense objects absorb neutrinos. If you have a fairly dense object next to a less dense object, the fairly dense object absorbs more neutrinos causing the ones to be reemitted to have less momentum. This allows the less dense object to be pushed to the dense object, because the neutrinos impacting the other side of the less dense object is higher than the side of the less dense object that is being impacted by neutrinos that are being remitted with less momentum from the fairly dense object. My theory is not "pull" either it's push. It relies on density not mass. I should have not said "massive" object but dense object. I apologize for my error. No object attracts neutrinos, because all objects attract neutrinos. The density is what determines how many of those neutrinos are absorbed and reemitted.

Okay I see what you're saying. I also corrected that mistake to "push theory." Sorry bout that.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Gravity

No prolbem, man. So did that explanation help my case at all?

 

[terrabyte]

Can you explain that more? Density has nothing to do with distance. Where does volume come in? Each and every particle has volume

the equation for density is pretty self explanatory. The total amount of mass divided by the object's volume. Volume being measured in cubed distance measurements, so how can you say distance is not a factor?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Gravity

When I said not a factor, I meant that density is not a factor in the F_g equation. I say that the equation needs to be revised to include density, because it only measures one aspect of volume. A mere radial distance from the center of gravity of two objects squared does not provide volume.

Arg, I'm not good at asking what I'm seeking. Thanks for having patience and correcting me, because through your questions I'm able to explain what I am seeking more thoroughly.

 

[russ_watters]

forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??

You can get redshift both through gravity and through motion (apparent motion).

 

[terrabyte]

When I said not a factor, I meant that density is not a factor in the equation. I say that the equation needs to be revised to include density, because it only measures one aspect of volume. A mere radial distance from the center of gravity of two objects squared does not provide volume

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

 

[russ_watters]

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

russ_watters, I tink everyone rsponding to this topic has an attitude, so please just don't point me out; it's not fair. I'd lighten up, but with you people getting an attitude towards me, I can't help but get one back.

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

Thanks for telling this terrabyte. Yes, distance is a component of volume, but that is to some extent. I know density is not a factor in gravitational equations, but they should be a factor. Density has an affect on gravity properties. You people are ignorant of your own beliefs.

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic?? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

 

[terrabyte]

Density has an affect on gravity properties

again, no it doesn't...

 

[Entropy]

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic?? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

Newton only made equations that described his observations of gravity. And they worked in most cases. You don't need to know what something is when you are only observing it's effects. Then Einstein developed general relativity which described what gravity is, a curvature of space-time. And this is supported by many experiments. Coincedence? I think not. Should we also dismiss Achimedes' principals of buoyancy just because he didn't know water was made of atoms, even though it works? Where as you're "pull" theory is supported by zero experiments and has no mathimatical basis (not that you always need one, but it helps).

Look we understand perfectly what this pull theory is saying and it just doesn't work. As you said in your first post "this is very HYPOTHETICAL". You also assume that neutrinos push things back down to Earth even though they don't have a fraction of the power (supported by neutrino detectors and math) to do so and hardly interact with matter (also supported by neutrino detectors and math) at all (exerting any type of "pressure" would be interaction). And you also say that cosmic rays provide neutinos at night even though a tiny fraction of all neutrinos come from cosmic rays.

Look if you really know a lot about general and special relativity (like the people arguing against you) it makes a whole lot of sense and its predicted many things and supported by many experiments.

You should know that many of you're sources (Alice Law and http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm ) the authors are not physicists. The author of Alice Law says so and Michael Allen Gelman doesn't give any references to his eduction, wonder why? Gelman just sounds like some know it all computer technician. Look its not that there is anything wrong with not having an education in physics and its okay to have opinions about physics regaurdless of your eduction. But if you don't have a degree is physics and someone with a phd disagrees with you, you should atleast trust him for the time being until you've really really studied the subject at hand from creditible sources. Then you might see why his right.

russ have u not read ANY of urtalkinstupid's posts describing the push theory of gravity?? he's only explained this atleast a dozen times for u people. and i could really care less whether or not u post anything else on this thread because u aren't putting up a good argument anyways, "mentor".

He said he wasn't going to get into this, meaning his not going to post a lot. Not that he hasn't read any of urtalkingstupid's posts. And he isn't posting because of the subject of this thread, its urtalkingstupid's attitude. Although I'd say you're attitude is far worse. You should also know that "mentor" sign wasn't put there by him. The creators of these forums gave it to him because he is extremely knowlegdeable and has helped out so many people. Just so you know the creators are professional physicists, many with phd's.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

first off, we can only make educated guesses about jupiter's true density. second of all, Jupiter rotates nearly three times faster than the earth. that would affect the "feel" of gravity on the planet. here's another site i'll give u. if u can prove this guy wrong he will give u $1000: http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/
u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT. and u say i have a bad attitude? do u think i actually care? i hope u weren't trying to make a point by quoting me and saying almost the same thing i said. russ is a mentor on this site whether or not he awarded himself with the title.

 

[terrabyte]

u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT

it's called professional respect. we understand that a lot of people have worked very hard for many years to study and learn about the way things currently are understood to work. when it comes to their "word" as far as things go, what makes you think we're going to trust 17 year old kids with illogical notions on how they think the universe should work over professionals who make their living working in the field.

it's all well and good to explore the possibilities, which is why we've even bothered to come here in the first place. but to accept something that doesn't even hang together as plausible over something that works well and is well understood by everyone is just sad. you can't come saying "it's wrong it's wrong because i say so" and then you don't even understand how it works in the first place. kinda throws the credibility of your arguments right in the crapper

 

[urtalkinstupid]

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the Earth can get CLOSER to the sun. When it does get closer, it's harder for the Earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity. Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

Entropy! Hey, boiiii! You crazy boi! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? ! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? )


Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF! He also had a bad childhood. Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

The sun makes lots of neutrinos. About 61,000,000,000 neutrinos per second from the sun pass through each square centimeter of cross section on the surface of the Earth. If your body presents an area to the sun of 10,000 square centimeters, this means that 610 trillion neutrinos are passing right through your body in the second it takes to read this line.

Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

ok travis no more *singing*... PLEASE!
entropy, neutrinos do effect the matter they pass through. why do u think we are able to detect them? detectors like CERN show images of neutrinos colliding with particles in the heavy water. what's to say they don't exert a force on objects? it was previously thought that neutrinos had no mass but in '98 the super-kamiokande team declared that neutrinos do in fact have mass. things math showed correct (like neutrinos having no mass) were proved to be false. so if u don't mind, provide me with the mathematics used to show that neutrinos don't exert a force.

terrabyte:
get it right.. I'm 15 not 17. and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me want to post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.