Gravity to surface and speed of stars

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the implications of gravity and time dilation on the acceleration of objects, suggesting that time moves slower near massive bodies like Earth. It posits that this could explain the perceived faster movement of stars in spiral galaxies, as time may pass differently depending on distance from mass. The constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s² is challenged, emphasizing that gravitational pull varies with proximity to mass, as described by Newton's law. However, the effects of time dilation are deemed negligible on Earth and only become significant in extreme cosmic scenarios. Ultimately, the observed behavior of stars in galaxies remains inconsistent with simple gravitational models, indicating a need for deeper understanding in cosmology.
Kristiandhd
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
the law of gravity states that objects accelerate at a constant speed, but I'm wondering that if you take into consideration that time travels slower the closer you are to the surface of the earth. doesn't that imply that although it seems to us that it is constant acceleration that, it is actually accelerating at a faster rate as it falls.

maybe this would also explain why stars on the outside of a spiral galaxy seems to us to travel faster when they shouldn't be. when in reality it is that time travels faster the farther you get from matter because less space is being altered.

so it is space pushing us into the mass, and gravity depends on the amount of matter distorting space. and space is pushing from all direction creating they semi circular from of celestial bodies to try and reach its equilibrium where space isn't being affected by matter?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 on the surface of Earth is only an approximation. Newton's law of gravitation doesn't state that the acceleration is constant, but it is actually given by:
F=G(m1m2)/r2
This equation shows that the closer you are to a mass (a planet, for example), the stronger the gravitational pull.

That's classical physics, however. The effects of time dilation that you mention would have an extremely small effect on your observed acceleration, but it's such a small effect that it's insignificant on earth. Relativistic effects such as time dilation become significant only when dealing with extremely large quantities of space, time or mass. In the case of spiral galaxies, cosmologists are aware of the need to account for this relativistic behavior, and the behavior of the galaxies still differs from what we expect.
 
Last edited:
Those stars are quicker by a factor of roughly 2-3. If you would compress all mass in the milky way to a black hole, it would have a radius of ~1 light year, but the relevant stars have a distance of >20,000 light years. This gives a factor of about 1.00005 for the relative "speed of time". Several orders of magnitude away from the observed effect. In addition, I am not sure if the sign fits at all.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top