Unified Field

Ok, but there shouldn't be no attraction of objects, which are placed beyond the cloud Probably couple to couple hundreds sun masses - so nothing spectacular, considering the size It's not zero anywhere - but with the increasing distance from the center of mass, it becomes such weak and insignificant, that it can be considered as zero Ok, so maybe a better example - time, which passes from the moment, when gravitational waves were emitted, to the moment, when they were detected on Earth... Don't worry - I will soon cover the problem of gravity in QM - everything will be explained But for this moment I barely manage to answer for all the questions Sometimes I can't treat seriously some of the statements, which were made in this thread. Besides, if someone slaps me in the face - I always try to pay it back (probably this is why I have already 5 negative opinions - but it does't bother me, to be the "bad guy" ) edit - 6 negatives, as someone just gave me another one .., I'm goin sleep. C'ya!

Really? Does a cloud of interstellar gas create gravity? It does... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-is-a-star-born/ However it's radius is big while density is small, so the edge of such cloud is very far from the center of mass - this is why it's gravity should be almost completely absent in the surrounding Tell it to the scientific society - it's a generally accepted concept and is being widely used by official sources. But the model is far from completion and is being constantly developed. There are some parts, which won't fit to eachother, no matter how hard you try. For example, quantum mechanics won't work with GR, because of the deterministic concept of time dimension - so why shouldn't we change the concept of time, to fix that problem? You got me - congratulations I admit my mistake Oh, thanks! Then in fact it rather won't collapse into a BH, but rather cause thermonuclear reaction and turn into a beautiful mushroom cloud... Not all for sure - but it should... I have a theory, which treates the time as a wave function. It works very well for both: micro- and macroscale and is fully consistent with the laws of quantum physics - what means, that I can successfully consider time a wave function Probably not, as science explains the physical reality, using 11 different dimensions and unprovable theories, which look more like a cheap holywood movie, than physics... Strange times we live in... Oh, and the BB being a POINT of the beginning? So how would you describe a moment of time using GR? How long is a current moment and when it becomes the future or past? According to Quantum Physics, there are quantitied values for the 3D space and for the time - both marked by the name of Max Planck. Question is: which concept is correct and which one is wrong? Well, existence of Planck's Lenght and Time is already confirmed by math, experiments and observation - so denying it, just because it doesn't fit into a THEORY, is probably not the smartest solution...

No - buoyancy works, because a medium with smaller density of matter, tries to get out from a medium with bigger denisty. Luckily I didn't have to pay for my education, to know such things... Woow, those have to be forces, which are described by the super-special-attractive-relative laws of quantinuum reavaliableimpossibility. You should say better: "ESPECIALLY in a microwave"... Why? I don't know - as I still remain in a strong shock, after reading about so many completely new laws and still unknown forces of standard mechanics. Put your hand under the ball of plasma in a microwave owen and check if there's some cold air flowing from above - maybe if you confirm your concepts of physics, you will become famous.. This NO looks so certain and unquestionable, that I probably have no other choice, than believe you... Thanks! So a ball of Uranium won't fall into black hole? Interesting... Never heard about it before... Do you have some sources?

If the Sun would disappear, we would have some 8 minutes, before Earth would eject from it's orbit and travel into the emptyness of space... I reject the bits, which still need to be proved by direct observation and which don't fit to the rest of model. Problem is, that science tries everything, to fix the problem, using hammers, trying to reshape some parts (what matters is the triangle inside the box, so what, if we pushed it through a round hole) and cover the remaining holes with some wooden plates. I prefer to search for some bits and pieces of better quality - and if there aren't any avaliable, I create new ones - which will in fact fit perfectly to the rest... Size doesn't depend on anythingm just like the mass - it's a fixed property of an object Yes - gravity will be different, if we change the mass. But gravity will be different as well, if we would stretch a planet to a size of entire star system. According to current theories, such object wouldn't create gravity - as it's radius would be too big... I think, that such object would still create a g. field - but it would be much weaker and much bigger...

Oh - so it was I, who accused me of ignoring some laws, which are BTW slightly outdated? Should I then ignore similar posts in the future? There are parts of GR, which simply can't be tested empirically by any mean... How to prove, that there is a time dimension, with (almost) infinite number of points (equal to Planck's Time), which exist as completely physical realities, if we have no idea, if it's even possible travel between those points? Of course - according to calculations, such travel should be possible in the future (which we still can't perceive, so there's no way of telling, how far this future might be), so possibly, when this moment will come, we will be finally able to confirm in 100%, that one of the main assumptions in GR Theory, is in fact correct... Or this - how can we prove, if for a physical object, which is moving with the speed of light, flow of time completely stops - if the same theory tells, that there's no way for a physical object, to reach the speed of light? But this also has no actual value for the discussion...

And what, if we need to consider a satellite, which suppose to orbit around a cloud of interstellar gas? Will the gravity created by this cloud be the same as a gravity created by a planet with the same size?

It is partially wrong, as Newton didn't include the "delay" of light in space and assumed, that effects of gravity happen instantly, no matter of the distance... I prefer science, which makes sense and can be proved empirically - not only by calculations. Half of the things, which you calculated and called as a theory, don't make any sense, while some others assume the impossibility of physical measurement or even perception of any kind. Let's simply assume, that there are infinite parallel realities, which expand into infinity in a 11D space - if it can be calculated, so it has to be correct, right?.... This is, where you came: middle of a black hole (and I see a dark future for you)

No - density tells you, what is the mass AND the size of a body. End of story - it's a simple and obvious fact and you probably don't want to disagree with those... Indeed, you can change the order of this trio - however the proper version should be: smaller and with less mass, means lower density - and sadly such statement is COMPLETELY incorrect...

Vmedvil where are you??? Why I have the impression, that in this society of scientists, only you can say something useful and scientifically correct. And why something tells me, that you are smart enough to know, when it's better to leave the scene - what makes me sad, as only your input had some actual scientific value in the current debate: me VS all others. Please come back, because when I read, what some other "scientists" around here have to say, I don't know, if I should laugh or cry...

"Not only is the Moon smaller than the Earth, but it is only about 60 percent as dense as Earth. Thus, the gravitational attraction on the Moon is much less than it is here on Earth, and a person weighs less on the Moon." "Because the moon is smaller than the Earth and about 60 percent as dense, the astronaut’s weight is only about one-sixth of what it would be on Earth." Oh... So maybe help me to understand those sentences correctly - as I keep understanding them, as a direct explanation of density being a crucial property for the gravitational fields. I have to hallucinate...

I do not understand, why shouldn't we observe somekind of object, falling into the BH, if it's orbit will get close enough to the center? It happens sometimes in the case of planets or stars... If there's no difference between the gravity of a star and a black hole, which the star turned into - then why light can escape from all stars? If you say, that it's because the radius of a black hole is smaller and there's closer distance to the center of mass - wouldn't it mean that light was trapped as well in the center of this star? It's not a wild guess, but simple logic - gravity of black holes has to become stronger, in order to trap the light... Yes - you're almost there... Just one more tiny step: What happens, when the size of an object is getting smaller, while it's mass remain the same? Need help? And again right answer - as a result of this (very mysterious) process, strenght of gravity will grow indeed... ??? Long Time Ago In a Galaxy Far, Far Away... ??? Oh, so light is being trapped in the core of a star, even before it turns into a black hole? Interesting... Can you give me some sources of such impressive knowledge?

Really? If density of an object doesn't matter for the gravitational fields, then why a black hole creates much stronger gravity, than the star, which became it's source (even if we assume, that there was no loss of material during the process)? Initially, mass of a black hole doesn't differ too much from the mass of the ex-star - and there are many stars with higher mass, than a black hole - and still they don't collapse... But there CAN be plasma in a microwave owen, if we will put open fire inside and turn it on... Yes! You're absolutely correct! Congratulations... Even if I was telling this, since the beginning of this thread (well, better later, than never)... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page2.php Yeah, it's quite easy to miss the right fragments in such a long text (actually, it isn't - but let's say it is...). So maybe I will copy and paste it here - just in case, if someone suffers to some extreme case of ADHD and can't focus for 3 minutes to read a single page or writing... First one: "We can think of gravity as the invisible force that pulls two masses together. When we speak of mass, we’re talking about the amount of matter in a substance. Density is a measure of how much mass is concentrated in a given space. Sir Isaac Newton discovered that as an object’s mass increases, the gravitational attraction of that object increases. For example, a container filled with a more dense material like granite rock has more mass and thus more gravitational attraction than that same container filled with water. The Earth’s Moon has considerably less mass than the Earth itself. Not only is the Moon smaller than the Earth, but it is only about 60 percent as dense as Earth. Thus, the gravitational attraction on the Moon is much less than it is here on Earth, and a person weighs less on the Moon. This weaker gravity is why we have the famous images of the Apollo astronauts taking “one giant leap for mankind” on the Moon’s surface." Second one: "This famous photograph of an astronaut taking a “giant leap for mankind” demonstrates the effect of the moon’s lower gravity on a person’s weight. Because the moon is smaller than the Earth and about 60 percent as dense, the astronaut’s weight is only about one-sixth of what it would be on Earth. Although they are not as dramatic as the Earth-moon difference, slight variations in the mass and density across the Earth’s surface do create differences in Earth’s gravity field." Of course, they didn't say it directly, but it should be clear from those two fragments, that density of matter in a source has a GREAT importance for the force of gravity and properties of a g. field. Telling such heresies openly, is most likely strictly forbidden in the scientific society - as it threatens the dogma of Einstein's omniscience and absolute perfection of his GR Theory... But somene, who can read between the letters just a bit, should easily notice, that they mentioned about the density with some purpose... to be continued...

And if Earth would shring so much, that it would create a black hole - wouldn't it affect the orbits neither? Is the gravity of a black hole the same (or even weaker, due to the loss of plasma during supernova), as the gravity of the star, which was it's source? Or is the gravity of black holes MUCH stronger, than gravity of stars? But is a black hole created because of some mysterious increase of it's mass, or because of growing density of matter, which is being compressed by the gravity into something with the maximal possible level of density? Because I use common logic, instead of some virtual equations... And common logic tells, that by decreasing the size of Earth. we will increase the magnitude of it's g. field - and satellites will at some point, fall from the sky. Of course, we can disagree - as you prefer equations, instead of logic - so the only option, will be to actually shrink the planet and see, what will happen with the satellites...

The same mass, but different density... Please - I don't think, that it's THAT hard to understand the correlation between mass and density... Float in which direction? Without gravity there won't be no direction... We can agree, that the force of such anti-gravity, is created by the buoyancy of plasma, inside the owen - as energetic particles want to move out from this medium, but gravity gives the direction of force (against). However, if this upward oriented force will become strong enough (what can be possibly done by adding more plasma into the owen, or by further increasing it's energy), it will most likely fly stright into space - no matter, if there will be some atmosphere around it, or not... So, is it actually an effect of buoyancy, if upward motion of owen won't be connected with the density of medium? Then why nebulas create much weaker g. fields, than solid celestial bodies? Why it's the interstellar gas, which is being attracted by planets and stars - even if the total mass of such gas cloud can be higher, than the mass of a solid body - and not the other way (planets attracted by gas clouds)?

Yes - plasma has most likely smaller density, than air inside the microwave owen That's why - plasma wants to move towards an area, where density of air is smaller But - there's no such place within the owen (except the area, where plasma is located - but since plasma can't move to the inside of itself, you can simply ignore this fact) So - plasma is deeply confused, as it doesn't even know about such reality, as "outside of owen", not to mention about something, like atmosphere or it's hypothetical density So What happens with plasma, if the owen would be placed on ISS? a) it flows in random directions, looking for somekind of "outer space" (like someone during an attack of claustrophobia) b) it flows freely inside the owen (like Tinker Bell fairy) c) it places itself in the exact center of air mass, inside the owen (like a Shaolin monk) d) explodes / implodes / teleports itself / annihilates time / collapses reality / create a black hole or wormhole / start to produce anti-matter / guess by yourself e) makes something completely logical, but I still don't know, what might it be Personally, I would choose the option b) but if I'm wrong, then correct me

Tell it to the plasma inside microwave owen... It's iterior is separated from the atmosphere, so the force of buoyancy can appear only inside the owen - however there's almost no difference of medium density within such small place. So, if we won't assume, that the plasma has some magical way of knowing, what is the desity of air outside the owen, upward motion can't be explain with buoyancy... And because there's no better way to call a force, which is opposing the gravity, as anti-gravity, I will keep calling it this way, until you won't figure out a better name... According to who? You? And who are you? Somehow I prefere to put bigger trust in a source, which has a "nasa.gov" in the adress... It's great, that you decided to enlighten us with your knowledge. However maybe you should consider also to elaborate - just a tiny bit... Exactly! And the mass, together with this radius, creates a property, which is commonly known as.... density (surprise!) So what? In solar System all bodies orbit around Sun and still sometimes a comet falls into the star. Why stars, which are rotating around the center of galaxy are not consumed by the central BH? If the attraction between galaxies, would be created by the g. fields of central BH's, only the BH's would be attracted. Galaxies interact, as single objects and not an assemblies of fields - just as Solar System acts, as a single object, during interactions with other stars in the Milky Way. I don't know and I don't care too much As far, as it affects an object... note: different objects will be affected by a g. field at different distances - depending on their masses (density?). But according to mainstream science it's probably a total heresy, as it is not described in GR.... Actually it's rather hard to call the motion of Solar System within the Milky Way, as orbital... So does, or not? Because this: F = GMm/r^2 doesn't explain, what is the difference of magnitude in g. fields for different densities of the source. And such correlation is something rather obvious - as objects with low density (gas clouds for example) create much weaker gravity, than celestial bodies with similar mass. What are the different kinds of mass? I know only one kind of mass - the one, which has it's origin in subatomic particles...

So at last we can agree in one point... But I would say, that it's the MASS and SIZE, which equally matter - density is combination of both. I don't want to scare you, but this already makes us pseudo-scientists, as according to current knowledge, size of the source affects the gravity only by changing the distance from the center of mass (towards which the magnitude of gravity is growing) But what, if there's a nebula with a total mass of 10 Suns? Will it turn into BH? Because, according to the current knowledge, BH is created when critical mass of a body is reached - and there's nothing about the density... http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec21.html Official science tells, that all objects with mass create g. fields, in which magnitude of gravity depends only on the mass of source. According to current knowledge 2 spherical objects with 1kg of mass will create equally strong gravity - no matter, if one object is made of steel and the second is made of styro-foam... Does it looks correct for you? For me doesn't... I would say, that 1kg steel ball should create stronger gravity, than the styro-foam ball. Of course GR Theory doesn't say anything about it, so it will be probably considered as a heresy - but I would like to hear your opinion... To be continued...

As for importance of density and mass in the source of gravitational fields... https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-dependent-on-mass-or-on-density-How So, we have some 4 options too choose: a) only mass matters b) density matters just a bit c) both don't matter d) both equally matter I don't know, how abbout you, but I choose option d) ... But I'm not a real scientist, so let's ask NASA... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page2.php And as always: Never A Straight Answer... But from those couple sentences, I can conclude, that according to them, density actually matters a lot... Exactly as I stated earlier... But let me ask you just some questions: - Milky Way is an object at around 100 Billion solar masses - so why it didn't become a one giant black hole - How strong is gravitational field of Milky Way, compared to a medium-size black hole? - If attraction between Andromeda and Milky Way is caused by their gravitational fields - why those fields won't squeeze all their stars, into a single super-duper massive black hole? - why galaxies are being attracted to eachother, as whole objects, instead to attract only particular star systems...?

Moon also has angular momentum - and the size of it's orbit, just as it's mass is MUCH greater... Ok, but it doesn't matter... Assuming, that the attraction between Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies is completely gravitational - would there be just as strong attraction between Milky Way and a single star system, placed at the same distance, as Andromeda? Won't there be any difference between g. fields, which are emitted by a nebula and by a star - if both will have equal masses? Oh, do you think, that "a force/vector directed in opposition to gravity" sounds better? You didn't like the "negative weight" neither... So maybe nowv it's your turn to give an idea for some cool and "pro-scientific" name...

Rocket engines create thrust because of the force, which is opposite to the exhaust (Newton Laws). Anti-gravity doesn't generate any kind of force, directed towards the surface - it's just a vector directed in opposition to gravity. Rocket engines is similar to throwing a rock - you need to apply some external kinetic energy, to create a force, directed in opposition to gravity. Anti-gravity IS a force directed in opposition to gravity. It turns electric charge and thermal energy of particles into kinetic propulsion of an object - it's rather electromagnetism, than standard mechanics....

How much closer you can place the orbit of moon, until it will start to "fall" towards Earth's surface? Is this distance the same for all other objects, no matter, what is their mass and density? If so, then why geostationary satellites won't fall from the sky? Is there even a formula, which allows to calculate such distance for objects with different masses? From what I know about the GR Theory and the concept of gravity as space-time curvatures, all objects should start to be attracted by the gravity well at the same distance from the source Then why moon will start to "fall" from much greater distance, than satellites? to be continued...

Or rather you just lack the knowledge of such science... Luckily I know, how to use google and now you have the rare oportunity, to evaluate your opinion. You welcome https://www.quora.com/Can-gravitational-waves-interact-with-other-gravitational-waves https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.044017 http://www.astro.auth.gr/~vlahos/GravitoplasmaWS1/andreas.pdf It seems, that thanks to your lazyness, I've learned something new myself - until now I've had no idea about such branch of physics, like gravitoplasma... Everyday something new I can be wrong, but this looks to me, like interactions of gravitational waves...

I already answered the difference between hot air ballons and plasma - but I will repeat it, just to be sure, that you won't "accidentally" miss it... At some certain level of thermal energy, particles start to generate negative weight (weight NOT mass) and start to be repelled from the center of mass. Sun is made of plasma and creates the strongest/biggest g. field in Solar System. Generally majority of solar plasma stays on the Sun, as the gravity is strong enough to keep it in place, but when some particles gain enough energy, they overcome the gravitational field and leave the Sun. If you talk about solar wind (fast and slow) - it is carried by the magnetic field of Sun. If you speak about CME's - they are caused by magnetic reconnections. And if you speak about proton events - then think how much energy they have, compared to plasma in solar wind... Someone here probably slept too much during physics lesson. Buoyancy simply won't work without somekind of gravitational field. Without gravity, hot air baloon won't fly up, just as without the atrmosphere Shapes of flames on Earth and in space are different because of gravity and not because of density of atmosphere... Please - we learn about those things in primary school... Apparently you miss some basic knowledge regarding basic laws of physics...

Generally, in such concept, gravity and anti-gravity forces are a result of interaction between gravitational waves. anti-gravity is also a kind of gravitational field, but gravitational waves emitted by the source, have short wavelenght and very high frequency - compared to gravity on Earth. Properties of g. fields depend on the density of particles in the source and their energy level. Mass of the source determines the amplitude of a g. waves. (what defines the magnitude of a g. field), while physical size of the source, determines the wavelenght. Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, so frequency of a g. field should depend only on the density - but there's also the thermal energy of particles, which is connected with the frequency of their vibrations and as result, with the density of matter. Higher frequency of particle vibrations result in higher amplitude and shorter wavelenght - but at the same time the higher is the thermal energy, the less dense is the matter. Gravitational fields in space are always placed in order - lowest frequencies in the center of mass, higher frequencies towards the outside. The higher is the frequency of a g. field, placed within another g.field, the stronger is the outward directed force. Because plasma is highly energetic, it creates a quite strong high frequency g. field - and this is why it generates such strong anti-gravity force...

By anti-gravity I mean a force, which opposes or annihilate local gravitational field. In this case it's plasma, which is moving out from the source of gravity. In the difference to conventional flight, anti-gravity don't need atmosphere to work (except the oxygen, which is consumed by ionized flames) and doesn't require the motion of a body, as it doesn't use the force of lift. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/lift1.html Anti-gravity is more, like buoyance, but is generated by particles, when they reach higher energy level - like the candle flame turning into high energy plasma. However even a candle flame produce a weak anti-gravity force. On ISS all flames are spherical in shape, as fire is no longer affected by Earth's gravitational field. Question is, if such anti-gravity propulsion would work in gravitational fields, which are produced by bodies without atmosphere - as buoyancy and flight won't work without somekind of a medium with proper density... The best option, to check it, would be to take some hermetic container with a candle inside and go to the moon, to see, if the flame will be distorted by the local gravitational field... But I think, that it's just a waste of time, as we can use simple logic to guess, that gravity on moon would in fact affect the shape of flame. Why? Well, air inside the ISS station doesn't have any contact with atmosphere and it's completely separated from the environment. But if we make a hermetic container on the Earth's surface and put a candle inside, flame will be directed upward - and since the container is hermetic, it doesn't matter, how dense is the medium outside it. This is how I can assume, that according to my concept of anti-gravity, such propulsion should work even in hypothetical vacuum (if we will provide some fuel for plasma). This shows as well, that anti-gravity is not buoyancy - as you won't fly too high with a hot air baloon on the moon. Hot air is still a neutral gas and without the atmosphere, it will simply "fall" to the ground, because of it's weight. But if we would put enough energy into the microwave owen, plasma created inside it, will still create an anti-gravity force and the owen should fly to space, without any atmosphere... I don't know, if there's a formula to calculate the weight of fire or plasma on Earth's surface - but something tells me, that it would have negative values... Correct me, if I'm wrong...