MigL Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) Should have known he had an agenda. He's going to explain to us how gravity REALLY works. Good night. Edited December 27, 2017 by MigL
beecee Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 8 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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... Let me answer that another way for you to understand.... If magically we could compress all the mass of the Sun to within its Schwarzchild radius, [about 2.5 kms from memory] it would become a BH. Contrary perhaps to your "logic" the solar system would not be sucked in...all the planets would continue to orbit on their known orbital path. Also the gravity of any object depends on the mass of the object, and the distance you are from it. That explains why light within the interior of the Sun does not get trapped.......for that to happen all the Sun's mass would need to be inside the paraemter of the light/photon. And just quickly another point...If it has been answered I apologise, but from a distant frame of reference anyone viewing an object falling into a BH, would never see it cross the EH, just gradually red shifted beyond the range of your eyes or telescope until it gradually faded from view. But If that object falling in was me, I would certainly cross the EH, and be spaghettified by the tidal gravitational effects until torn asunder into my most basic fundamental parts. 3 hours ago, MigL said: Should have known he had an agenda. He's going to explain to us how gravity REALLY works. Good night. That was made known without a shadow of a doubt in the following thread...http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112395-hijack-from-science-and-the-uni-multiverse-whichever-you-prefer/?tab=comments#comment-1030166 1
swansont Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 10 hours ago, Unified Field said: I Besides, telling, that some concepts are inconsistent with mainstream theories, or that there's still no theory, which would explain some aspects of a model, doesn't prove anything. So what, if my concept of gravity differs from the concept of gravity in GR? What matters, is the observation, measurement and empirical proof. GR has been tested against experiment many times. It works. You have no model and no experimental evidence that contradicts GR. 10 hours ago, Unified Field said: If you want me to change the concept, you need to prove me, that my explanation is inconsistent with observable facts - and not with hypothesies or virtual calculations... That's not how this works. You need to support your idea — testable predictions, a model, and/or evidence. The burden of proof is yours.
Strange Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 16 hours ago, Unified Field said: What matters, is the observation, measurement and empirical proof. If you want me to change the concept, you need to prove me, that my explanation is inconsistent with observable facts - and not with hypothesies or virtual calculations... As you have not provided anything that can be tested (e.g a mathematical model) it isn't possible prove that it is not consistent with observation. However, as many of your claims appear to contradict well tested theory then it seems likely that your ideas would be inconsistent with observation. In order to test your explanation you need to produce an equation showing how density affects gravity. 1
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) Quote If magically we could compress all the mass of the Sun to within its Schwarzchild radius, [about 2.5 kms from memory] it would become a BH. Contrary perhaps to your "logic" the solar system would not be sucked in...all the planets would continue to orbit on their known orbital path. Also the gravity of any object depends on the mass of the object, and the distance you are from it. That explains why light within the interior of the Sun does not get trapped.......for that to happen all the Sun's mass would need to be inside the paraemter of the light/photon. Here's a nice movie. Most important things are being told beginning from 7:53 In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside... Anyway, I spent some time thinking about the density of gravity source and the orbits of objects, which move around the center of mass. I think, that I managed to find the solution. Those two images should explain everything... As I said before, mass of the source is responsible for the "amount" of produced gravity, while it's size defines the size of g. field. As we know, distribution of magnitude in a g. field is varied - attraction is getting stronger, the closer we get to the center of mass. 2 Objects with equal mass and different densities should create fields with the same "amount" of gravity, but with different sizes - so the same "amount" of force, has to be distributed over different areas of space. Force, which is distributed over a large area for the bigger source, has to be "compressed", to fit into a smaller space for a more dense object. As a result, force of attraction is stronger for the smaller source, but it's influence doesn't reach so far, as in the case of larger object. This is why, galaxies can interact with eachother as 2 objects over a huge distance, even if their g. fields are rather weak... But what with the orbit of a body, which is rotating around the source? Well, according to simple logic and to those 2 drawings, orbits should be affected by the change of source's density, but I have a plan to make a 3D simulation of this model (I just started working on it) and a real-life simulation (using rubber surface and some marbles) - so I should be able to confront my logic with reality... Quote That's not how this works. You need to support your idea — testable predictions, a model, and/or evidence. The burden of proof is yours. This is exactly, what I do. I was talking about some of the arguments, which you used to disprove my concept, by telling, that it's not consistent with GR theory - and for me this is not an argument at all. I would have to reconsider this concept only, if it would be inconsistent with observations/experimets and not with other theories... Edited December 27, 2017 by Unified Field
Vmedvil Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) Oh my, I am going to have to explain the Schwarzchild metric and Kerr Metric again the same way, if he doesn't stop. So, he will understand how all that works, which are solutions to the Einstein Field Equations. 12 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Here's a nice movie. Most important things are being told beginning from 7:53 In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside... Anyway, I spent some time thinking about the density of gravity source and the orbits of objects, which move around the center of mass. I think, that I managed to find the solution. Those two images should explain everything... As I said before, mass of the source is responsible for the "amount" of produced gravity, while it's size defines the size of g. field. As we know, distribution of magnitude in a g. field is varied - attraction is getting stronger, the closer we get to the center of mass. 2 Objects with equal mass and different densities should create fields with the same "amount" of gravity, but with different sizes - so the same "amount" of force, has to be distributed over different areas of space. Force, which is distributed over a large area for the bigger source, has to be "compressed", to fit into a smaller space for a more dense object. As a result, force of attraction is stronger for the smaller source, but it's influence doesn't reach so far, as in the case of larger object. This is why, galaxies can interact with eachother as 2 objects over a huge distance, even if their g. fields are rather weak... But what with the orbit of a body, which is rotating around the source? Well, according to simple logic and to those 2 drawings, orbits should be affected by the change of source's density, but I have a plan to make a 3D simulation of this model (I just started working on it) and a real-life simulation (using rubber surface and some marbles) - so I should be able to confront my logic with reality... Edited December 27, 2017 by Vmedvil
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 Quote As you have not provided anything that can be tested (e.g a mathematical model) it isn't possible prove that it is not consistent with observation. However, as many of your claims appear to contradict well tested theory then it seems likely that your ideas would be inconsistent with observation. In order to test your explanation you need to produce an equation showing how density affects gravity. No... In order, to test my idea, I will confront it with observations/experiments - so there's no need for any virtual calculations... I prefer practical science... -1
Vmedvil Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Unified Field said: No... In order, to test my idea, I will confront it with observations/experiments - so there's no need for any virtual calculations... I prefer practical science... Alright, Static BH or Schwarzchild Black-hole has no rotation it has a radius with mass inside it and less mass then its rotating cousins, Kerr BH as rotation happens it expands against the Schwarzchild Radius, so even with more mass which should decrease that radius the Radius increases because of the Vector of its mass against gravity. Which is formed from escape velocity equation, which everyone knows is true, Jump, do you fall to the ground, then you haven't reach escape velocity of this gravitational field. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/blahol.html This man however did then landed on the moon, Proof of this. Proof of BH Rotation. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/supermassive-black-hole-spinning-at-speed-of-light/article4462397.ece Edited December 27, 2017 by Vmedvil
swansont Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 16 minutes ago, Unified Field said: In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside... I said before, mass of the source is responsible for the "amount" of produced gravity, while it's size defines the size of g. field. As we know, distribution of magnitude in a g. field is varied - attraction is getting stronger, the closer we get to the center of mass. 2 Objects with equal mass and different densities should create fields with the same "amount" of gravity, but with different sizes - so the same "amount" of force, has to be distributed over different areas of space. Force, which is distributed over a large area for the bigger source, has to be "compressed", to fit into a smaller space for a more dense object. As a result, force of attraction is stronger for the smaller source, but it's influence doesn't reach so far, as in the case of larger object. This is why, galaxies can interact with eachother as 2 objects over a huge distance, even if their g. fields are rather weak... So you present a reference, and then ignore it? Despite your repetition here, g depends only on mass and distance. If they are the same, so is g. Drawings and logic are not what is required. If all you are going to do is more of the same, there is no point in continuing.
beecee Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 14 hours ago, beecee said: Let me answer that another way for you to understand.... If magically we could compress all the mass of the Sun to within its Schwarzchild radius, [about 2.5 kms from memory] it would become a BH. Contrary perhaps to your "logic" the solar system would not be sucked in...all the planets would continue to orbit on their known orbital path. Also the gravity of any object depends on the mass of the object, and the distance you are from it. That explains why light within the interior of the Sun does not get trapped.......for that to happen all the Sun's mass would need to be inside the paraemter of the light/photon. And just quickly another point...If it has been answered I apologise, but from a distant frame of reference anyone viewing an object falling into a BH, would never see it cross the EH, just gradually red shifted beyond the range of your eyes or telescope until it gradually faded from view. But If that object falling in was me, I would certainly cross the EH, and be spaghettified by the tidal gravitational effects until torn asunder into my most basic fundamental parts. 26 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Here's a nice movie. Most important things are being told beginning from 7:53 In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside... Thank you for the video which confirms exactly what I was trying to tell you. Quote Anyway, I spent some time thinking about the density of gravity source and the orbits of objects, which move around the center of mass. I think, that I managed to find the solution. Those two images should explain everything... The "solutions" are as I explained, and as detailed in the video.....simple as that.
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Vmedvil said: Alright, Static BH or Schwarzchild Black-hole has no rotation in has a radius with mass inside it and less mass then its rotating cousins, Kerr BH as rotation happens to expands against the Schwarzchild Radius, so even with more mass which should decrease that radius the Radius increases because of the Vector of its mass against gravity. Slow down a bit - I still didn't include the rotation of a source in this model. First I need to check, if changing just the size of Sun would affect somehow the orbits of planets in Solar System. According to current knowledge, it wouldn't, but according to my model, it would - if my predictions are correct, densier Sun would cause 2 effects on planets: bodies, which are placed close to the center would "fall" into the Sun, while more distant objects should "eject" from their orbits and fly into space. There's also a possibility, that in a certain region of space (somewhere in the middle of a g. field), force of gravitational attraction won't change.... Ok, now let me check this out... Quote Drawings and logic are not what is required. If all you are going to do is more of the same, there is no point in continuing. Logic IS required, as laws of physics are ALWAYS logical. How can you tell already, that there's no point of continuing, if I still didn't make any experiments? And what, if the models will show, that I'm correct? Will you say, that the models have to be wrong? Drawings are being used to present a concept in a way, which is easy to understand - they are not required, but help a lot... Edited December 27, 2017 by Unified Field
beecee Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Slow down a bit - I still didn't include the rotation of a source in this model. First I need to check, if changing just the size of Sun would affect somehow the orbits of planets in Solar System. According to current knowledge, it wouldn't, but according to my model, it would - if my predictions are correct, densier Sun would cause 2 effects on planets: bodies, which are placed close to the center would "fall" into the Sun, while more distant objects should "eject" from their orbits and fly into space. There's also a possibility, that in a certain region of space (somewhere in the middle of a g. field), force of gravitational attraction won't change.... Ok, now let me check this out... Orbital parameters and gravity have been observed, calculated and detailed for 300 years, and are totally supported by observational and mathematical data. No amount of pretentious over zealous confidence continually repeated on a public forum by any Tom, Dick or Harry, will ever change what we already know with great confidence and practical experiments illustrated by the numbers of robotic probes sent to the other planets, that have operated as expected and as detailed by the mathematics. The two Voyager probes immediatley come to mind after their encounters with the gaseous and icy giant planets as calculated. Edited December 27, 2017 by beecee
Strange Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 55 minutes ago, Unified Field said: No... In order, to test my idea, I will confront it with observations/experiments - so there's no need for any virtual calculations... I prefer practical science... But in order to test it agains observation, you need to make some calculations. Otherwise what are you comparing the evidence against? That is how science works. For example, you say gravity depends on density, Newton says it doesn't. We have the equations for Newtonian gravity and we can test them against observation. They give the right results. Now we need to see the equations for your version of gravity (let's call it Bogo-Gravity for convenience) and then we can see whether it matches the observations well or better than Newton. How else do we find out if your ideas are right or not?
swansont Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: Slow down a bit - I still didn't include the rotation of a source in this model. First I need to check, if changing just the size of Sun would affect somehow the orbits of planets in Solar System. According to current knowledge, it wouldn't, but according to my model, it would - if my predictions are correct, densier Sun would cause 2 effects on planets: bodies, which are placed close to the center would "fall" into the Sun, while more distant objects should "eject" from their orbits and fly into space. There's also a possibility, that in a certain region of space (somewhere in the middle of a g. field), force of gravitational attraction won't change..... We know that the density of the earth and moon are different. If gravity depended on density rather than mass, the force exerted by the earth on the moon would be different than that of the moon on the earth. (We already have plenty of evidence that the density of an object is not a factor). A density model fails. We've sent satellites to other worlds using Newton's law, based on mass, and it works. Your propsal using density doesn't work. ! Moderator Note seeing as you have only reiterated your claim, without model or evidence, this is closed. Do not reintroduce the topic . 1
Recommended Posts