Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[urtalkinstupid]

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

 

[Entropy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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

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

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

 

[Entropy]

That article doesn't even mention Hawking radiation.

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

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

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Hr

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

 

[Entropy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

black holes

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

 

[Entropy]

I know Hawking's radiation has not been detected

Then why did you say it has?

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

 

[beatrix kiddo]

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

 

[Eyesaw]

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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

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

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


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

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

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


uhh...what

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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

 

[Entropy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Entropy]

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

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

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

Nothing is proven in science.

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

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

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

and this elliptical orbit explains that elliptical shape of gases.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

Or am I wrong here?

If so -> tell me!

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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