What is Gravity? Understanding Its Role in Universe Formation

[kleinma]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This is a famous thought experiment. Imagine a hole through the Earth from pole to pole to avoid affects of Earth's spin. And imagine it is evacuated to avoid effects of air resistance.

Then if you fell into it at one pole here is what would happen. You would accelerate constantly as you fell until you reach the center. At this point you are moving very fast and will streak past the center. On the other side you are rising against gravity so you will decelerate at precisely the same rate as you accelerated before.

This will bring you to the surface at the other pole with no upward velocity. So you will fall back and the whole thing will happen again in reverse. And so on.

This is actually nothing but a degenerate cas of an orbit! You will have become a kind of satellite.

but then the gravity is still at the center no? the only reason you would shoot past the center and to the other side is because of the speed you built up traveling to the center..

 

[Antiproton]

I, Brian! We meet again! Here again, you are a bit hasty. In you're analysis, would it not be true then that people on the other side of the Earth would fall towards OUR surface? Gravity is directed towards the center of the earth, and that's the direction in which objects fall. Granted, the further you go, the less mass there is, but if there was a hole towards the core, you would not hover over its entrance.

And that gedanken experiment is one of my favorites. I remember solving that problem on an exam once, with the twist that we had to show at what initial speed the person achieved SHM, or something like that.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Antiproton
I, Brian! We meet again! Here again, you are a bit hasty. In you're analysis, would it not be true then that people on the other side of the Earth would fall towards OUR surface? Gravity is directed towards the center of the earth, and that's the direction in which objects fall. Granted, the further you go, the less mass there is, but if there was a hole towards the core, you would not hover over its entrance.

And that gedanken experiment is one of my favorites. I remember solving that problem on an exam once, with the twist that we had to show at what initial speed the person achieved SHM, or something like that.

ok cool... so i am correct then... isn't the gravity in the center of the Earth (and other objects in space) the real reason why they are spherical in shape? because all points are being pulled to a center

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This is a famous thought experiment. Imagine a hole through the Earth from pole to pole to avoid affects of Earth's spin. And imagine it is evacuated to avoid effects of air resistance.

Then if you fell into it at one pole here is what would happen. You would accelerate constantly as you fell until you reach the center. At this point you are moving very fast and will streak past the center. On the other side you are rising against gravity so you will decelerate at precisely the same rate as you accelerated before.

This will bring you to the surface at the other pole with no upward velocity. So you will fall back and the whole thing will happen again in reverse. And so on.

This is actually nothing but a degenerate cas of an orbit! You will have become a kind of satellite.

Aside from the fact that this is a purely hypothetical experiment (we could never make such a hole deep down there, cause the interior of Earth is fluid) your description has one flaw. As you fall near the center, the force of gravity will decrease. That is because all the matter at a sphere above you at equal distance to the center of gravity, will have a neutralized gravity pull. It ios as if you were atracted only by the sphere defined by the center of gravity and radius = distance towards the center.
In theory (if Earth would have a constant density everywhere) gravity force would drop linearly, but as the matter deeper down has more pressure on it from above, it is denser and heavier deeper down, so in the beginning the gravity would fall less slow as linearly, and later on faster as you would near the center.

 

[macm]

Gravity

klienma,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by macm
Relativity provides no motive source of energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



then why if you drop something it falls, other than the force of gravity pulling it? what does relativity say about that? Isnt gravity creating the acceleration and motion?


__________________



Sorry I missed your reply back on page (1).

As I stated Relativity claims curved space causes gravity but fails to describe how curved space creates any force. The stretched rubber gravity well analogy makes it clear. If you took a curved funnel shaped object into space either so remote in deep space that any other objects gravity are ineffective or put it into orbit for zero gravity and then place a BB on the rim of the curved funnel, the BB doesn't roll into the funnel because of the curve. It requires a force underneath the funnel (gravity) for the funnel to function.

The curve doesn't create gravity in of or by itself. There is no motive force provided by the curvature of space to move objects. that requires energy. Gravity is a phenomena of energy transfer not curved space.

 

[Andre]

That is because all the matter at a sphere above you at equal distance to the center of gravity, will have a neutralized gravity pull. It is as if you were atracted only by the sphere defined by the center of gravity and radius = distance towards the center.
In theory (if Earth would have a constant density everywhere) gravity force would drop linearly, but as the matter deeper down has more pressure on it from above, it is denser and heavier deeper down, so in the beginning the gravity would fall less slow as linearly, and later on faster as you would near the center

Exactly, this would give a complicated movement indeed. However if in the gedanken experiment you would allow for a Earth with uniform mass, the force on the body would be proportional to the distance to the centre. Sounds familiar? It is exactly the same as a mass and spring system. It would oscilate with a sine type movement. If there is no drag, you would oscilate in the hole from the entry on the one end to the exit on the other end indefinitely and it would take exactly the same oscillation time as a hypothetical satelite that would orbit Earth at ground level.

 

[subtillioN]

Gravity is a refraction type event

gravity is a refraction of intrinsic wave energies of the atom in response to a permeating "quantum vacuum" density gradient known as a gravitational field.

 

[Antiproton]

Originally posted by subtillioN
gravity is a refraction of intrinsic wave energies of the atom in response to a permeating "quantum vacuum" density gradient known as a gravitational field.

It sounds like you're asserting some kind of QM/GR gap bridging. What is this quantum vacuum, and how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Antiproton
It sounds like you're asserting some kind of QM/GR gap bridging. What is this quantum vacuum, and how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?

My comment is a vast simplification of the mechanism of gravity from a new unified field theory called Sorce Theory. It is more of a deeper level substrate reconstruction than a "gap bridging", but it does accomplish the same function and much more. I will skim across the details of the theory in a second, but first a little background. [More information can be found at this link as well: www.anpheon.org ]

--------

“What is this quantum vacuum”?—

The new conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is mathematically equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid. Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet”.

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”

Sorce Theory asserts that this "quantum Vacuum" is a real material fluid which is continuous, compressible and fluid-dynamic. The theory demonstrates how all the dynamics of a basic level superfluid such as, quantized meta-stable vortices, solitons, breathers, transverse wave propagation and harmonic resonances, frictionless rotation and translation of embedded particles and objects (dynamics indistinguishable from that of the observed vacuum)-- can form the quantized shell structure of the atom, the structure of the solar-system, the mechanisms of chemical-molecular bonds, all the forces of nature and the dynamics of physical reality. All the forces become understandable as a product of a single continuous fluid-dynamic pressure in dynamic configurations of harmonically equilibrated wave systems in various forms of interaction with each other.



Ok to answer your questions...

“how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?”

The “matter-wave” refractions of the atom do not create the g-field. They are a response to it—-a force. They are a refractive response to the permeating density gradient (a gravitational field) in the zero-energy superfluid which is oxymoronically called the “quantum vacuum”. This density gradient permeates the intrinsic harmonically equilibrated wave-systems of the atoms and skews the internal paths of the wave-systems toward the increasing density of the gradient. The atom equilibrates in the direction of the refraction of its internal wave systems. This is called the force of gravity.

I hope this cursory explanation helps.


subtillioN

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Man, that's just too far fetched for me!
Why do people have to take something
so real and tangible such as physics
and turn it all into a bunch of
mathematical equations that describes
only God knows what.

It seems to me that these new theories
in modern physics only create more
questions and less answers!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Man, that's just too far fetched for me!
Why do people have to take something
so real and tangible such as physics
and turn it all into a bunch of
mathematical equations that describes
only God knows what.

It is an entirely alternate paradigm. Naturaly it is going to sound "far-fetched" when you don't know the theory.

It seems to me that these new theories
in modern physics only create more
questions and less answers!

Yes to learn a new theory one must ask many questions.

[zz)]

 

[Moha]

To be honest that theory seems very flawed.

kleinma, the forces of gravity add together, and atoms, as well as other things, exert a gravitational pull.

Person who said gravity was linear - a close enough equation for gravity is (Gm1m2)/r^2, which is most definitely not linear.

Just realized how old this forum is... too bad.

photons - I do not believe that this is fact, but I do believe it is controversial.

As far as mindlessly taking things as fact, I think that is happening too much now days. It's not just that we may not have the correct understanding of certain aspects of our universe, it's that much of what is printed and taught are approximations, such as the pendulum equation, or Newton's theory on gravity. Also, is it not possible that gravity may just be a byproduct? **or going out of my education range could it be sort of a pull by the atoms to create magnetic and electric fields and still keep the conservation of energy valid?**

**I am unsure of the ways conservation of energy works under this condition, so this is most likely totally wrong.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This thread has long since died and most of its contributors are no longer posting here. Please don't attempt to continue discussions from three and a half years ago.