Unified Field Posted December 24, 2017 Share Posted December 24, 2017 According to mainstream science, gravity is caused by curvature of space-time, which is created by every object with rest mass. To create a physical model of this concept, scientists use a flat rubber surface and some marbles - like on this movie: My concept of gravity can be visualized using water and couple floating objects Force, which is responsible for attraction of floating objects is known, as Cheerios Effect and is explained by the surface tension of a liquid. But I have couple arguments, which allow me to say, that this is a nice way to visualise gravity. Here they are: - objects are attracted, no matter, what they are made of. - objects are accelerating, while they get closer to the source of attraction - force of attraction depends mostly on the density of objects. - the heavier is an object, the stronger it attracts other objects. - heavy objects are attracted to eachother from a greater distance, than light objects - path of a moving object, will curve towards the source of attraction, if it will get cought by the field. - around all floating objects, water surface is curved, what distorts the background and creates an effect, which looks EXACTLY, like gravitational lensing on Hubble images. In my concept, gravity is carried by gravitational waves, which are emitted by each object with mass - the greater is the mass and density of an object, the bigger waves it emits. Intensity of force is defined by the amplitude - which depends on mass of the source object, while wavelenght depends on it's size (mass/size=density) and defines the area of influence. Gravitational interaction between 2 objects takes place because of the interference of gravitational waves - waves with similar lenght create resonance, what causes the attraction. Big and heavy objects create large gravitational waves, which resonate with other waves at similar lenght - this is why heavy objects attract other heavy objects at much greater distances, than lighter ones. Gravity in this concept, can be understand, as a kind of buoyancy - which is defined by the density of an object. Most dense matter is attracted towards the center of mass in a medium. If the density of an object is smaller, than density of a medium, object is being repelled from the center of mass. This is a demonstration of a force, which can be possibly used to create an anti-gravity field: Fire, which is exposed to microwave radiation, turns into a bubble of plasma, which opposes the force of gravity. Theoretically, if we would input enough energy (and connect it with a VERY long cable), microwave owen would fly stright to space. However, such propulsion can be used ONLY inside a strong gravitational field. The bigger is the distance from the source of gravity, the longer is the wavelenght of grav. waves. At some point, grav. waves of the flying upward owen, would stop to resonate with Earth and the object won't be attracted - so the anti-gravity won't work anymore and the microwave will continue to float beyond the reach of Earth's gravitational field. So, we have already everything, to create simple anti-gravity propulsion - it's not sci-fi, but simple science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 There is nothing here that is antigravity, and nothing related to gravitational waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 16 hours ago, Unified Field said: In my concept Do you have a mathematical model that shows how your "concept" matches reality? Quote turns into a bubble of plasma, which opposes the force of gravity It only opposes gravity in the same sense that the floor or a piece of string does. Nothing to do with "antigravity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Ya, man I was pulling for you but you said the magic word which makes me hate you Anti-gravity. Doesn't work that way. Define "Anti-gravity" in your version because I have never found a person that ever said the word "Anti Gravity" that knew what they were talking about with gravity. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Vmedvil said: Ya, man I was pulling for you but you said the magic word which makes me hate you Anti-gravity. Doesn't work that way. Define "Anti-gravity" in your version because I have never found a person that ever said the word "Anti Gravity" that knew what they were talking about with gravity. 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... Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Quote There is nothing here that is antigravity, and nothing related to gravitational waves. 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... Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: By anti-gravity I mean a force, which opposes or annihilate local gravitational field. So throwing a ball in the air, for example? Or hot air balloons? 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: In this case it's plasma, which is moving out from the source of gravity. What force is making the plasma move away from the source of gravity? It won't do that by itself (see the Sun for example). 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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. The "anti-gravity" created by a flame is just buoyancy: the hotter, less dense material will be pushed up by the cooler, denser air around it. 53 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Generally, in such concept, gravity and anti-gravity forces are a result of interaction between gravitational waves. There is no science that says that. The rest of this post is nonsense. You seem to be jumping to some odd conclusions, apparently based on a lack of knowledge of basic physics. On 25/12/2017 at 12:29 AM, Unified Field said: To create a physical model of this concept, scientists use a flat rubber surface and some marbles - like on this movie: Note that this is just an analogy (and not a very good one). It is not how gravity works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Strange said: So throwing a ball in the air, for example? Or hot air balloons? 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. Quote What force is making the plasma move away from the source of gravity? It won't do that by itself (see the Sun for example). 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... Quote The "anti-gravity" created by a flame is just buoyancy: the hotter, less dense material will be pushed up by the cooler, denser air around it. 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... Quote You seem to be jumping to some odd conclusions, apparently based on a lack of knowledge of basic physics. Apparently you miss some basic knowledge regarding basic laws of physics... Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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 Apparently you miss some basic knowledge regarding basic laws of physics... If you had said parts of this differently I would have butchered you but no you said it correctly, but don't ever try to apply that to curvature, it won't work, your version of "Anti-gravity" is the same as mine in the sense that it is about force pushing against gravity's attractive force, which isn't actually "Anti-gravity" that is something pseudo science, this is just a force being more powerful than gravity's on a vector against it. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/science-supernova http://slideplayer.com/slide/6645718/ 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: 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... False all of it. 3 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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... Rocket Engines already do this from your version of "Anti-Gravity" which never use that term or "annihilate local gravitational field." It is a Vector in a direction that opposes gravity. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote There is no science that says that. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 29 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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. Do you mean buoyancy? If not, what evidence do you have for this claim? 30 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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. This has nothing to do with antigravity. And, if anything contradicts what you say: the plasma does not have "negative weight" despite the high thermal energy. Just because a few atoms/ions gain enough kinetic energy to reach escape velocity is not evidence of antigravity (any more than a rocket is). 31 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Buoyancy simply won't work without somekind of gravitational field. Without gravity, hot air baloon won't fly up, just as without the atrmosphere And, as you said, in the absence of gravity, a flame doesn't go up. It is the presence of gravity, and buoyancy, that causes a flame to go up. Not antigravity. 3 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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 Yes, gravitational waves exist. Yes possibly they can interact with plasmas. But that is not what you said. You said " gravity and anti-gravity forces are a result of interaction between gravitational waves." Which is not true. Gravity is a static field. It exists in the absence of gravitational waves. (And anti-gravity doesn't exist.) 5 minutes ago, Unified Field said: I can be wrong, but this looks to me, like interactions of gravitational waves... Maybe. But not the cause of gravity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Strange said: Do you mean buoyancy? If not, what evidence do you have for this claim? This has nothing to do with antigravity. And, if anything contradicts what you say: the plasma does not have "negative weight" despite the high thermal energy. Just because a few atoms/ions gain enough kinetic energy to reach escape velocity is not evidence of antigravity (any more than a rocket is). And, as you said, in the absence of gravity, a flame doesn't go up. It is the presence of gravity, and buoyancy, that causes a flame to go up. Not antigravity. Yes, gravitational waves exist. Yes possibly they can interact with plasmas. But that is not what you said. You said " gravity and anti-gravity forces are a result of interaction between gravitational waves." Which is not true. Gravity is a static field. It exists in the absence of gravitational waves. (And anti-gravity doesn't exist.) Maybe. But not the cause of gravity. Strange when he says "Negative weight" he means the Force in a vector against Gravity, I agree with what you said Strange about everything else, Unified Field does not know the proper terms for these things obviously. Energy-mass is the cause of Gravity Unified Field not Gravitational waves. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote False all of it. 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... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Vmedvil said: Strange when he says "Negative weight" he means the Force in a vector against Gravity Then there is no such thing. 9 minutes ago, Unified Field said: How much closer you can place the orbit of moon, until it will start to "fall" towards Earth's surface? It is falling towards the Earth. Continuously. If you move it closer, then it would orbit faster. But still be falling to the Earth at the same acceleration. The closest is when it starts to scrape the Earth! (Actually, the Roche limit defines how close it could be.) 10 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Is there even a formula, which allows to calculate such distance for objects with different masses? Of course. For objects in orbit around (or falling to) the Earth, simple Newtonian gravity will work. 11 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Then why moon will start to "fall" from much greater distance, than satellites? Show us the math to support this claim. Or stop making up nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 The Angular Momentum / Angular Kinetic Energy/ Angular velocity opposes the Force of Gravity another example of a Force Vector Opposite Gravity. http://ask.learncbse.in/t/viscous-force-increase-the-velocity-of-satellite-explain/5974 http://www.tutorvista.com/physics/angular-acceleration-formula https://www.embibe.com/learn/physics/concept-relation-between-torque-and-angular-acceleration-10298 https://ds055uzetaobb.cloudfront.net http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/space_for_reflection/satellites_gravity_circular_motion/revision/4/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Vmedvil said: The Angular Momentum / Angular Kinetic Energy/ Angular velocity opposes the Force of Gravity another example of a Force Vector Opposite Gravity. So does a piece of string. Not exactly "anti-gravity" though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Strange said: So does a piece of string. Not exactly "anti-gravity" though. No, it is not "anti-gravity" that is pseudoscience, just a Force Vector against gravity's direction Vector. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote Rocket Engines already do this from your version of "Anti-Gravity" which never use that term or "annihilate local gravitational field." It is a Vector in a direction that opposes gravity. 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.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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.... I told you not to use that term for it. "Anti-Gravity" that is pseudoscience, but your getting closer. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Quote The Angular Momentum / Angular Kinetic Energy/ Angular velocity opposes the Force of Gravity another example of a Force Vector Opposite Gravity. 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? Quote I told you not to use that term for it. "Anti-Gravity" that is pseudoscience, but your getting closer. 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... Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Vmedvil said: The Angular Momentum / Angular Kinetic Energy/ Angular velocity opposes the Force of Gravity another example of a Force Vector Opposite Gravity. None of those are forces, and not all of them are even vectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) I realize that, Do the Torque is though. Fr = τ , solve for it by the Integral of Angular velocity or use this equation. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotv.html Edited December 26, 2017 by Vmedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: I realize that, Do the Torque is though. F/r = τ , solve for it by the Integral of Angular velocity If the angular momentum is constant, there is no torque. If it isn't, then just talk about the force that's generating the torque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 1 minute ago, swansont said: If the angular momentum is constant, there is no torque. I do not remember, how it is derived but it is something like that maybe not torque but it is something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Quote False all of it. 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...? Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts