Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[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.