Gravity

[kkris1]

I was thinking about Newton's statement regarding gravity : "every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe". How is it possible? What is the link between those particles? . The attractive force of the gravity would require that a particle should be of the size of universe. I do not think it is possible. The explanation might be much simpler , without "spooky" force acting at a distance. (Same might apply to electrostatic and magnetic forces)

Please see the attachement

Kris

Gravity.doc

[insane_alien]

why must the partile be the size of the universe to influence every particle in the universe? Also the the electromagnetic force works by photons and we suspect that gravity might work in a similar way with gravitons.

[gagsrcool]

Hi,

 

I have not gone throught the paper yet, but I think I know the answer to your question.

Take two entities say the Earth and a ball. When both are separated over a certain distance, we clearly see the force of attraction of the Earth over the ball but not vice-versa. That is due to their respective masses. The mass of the Earth is huge when compared to the ball. So, even though the force of the ball acts on the Earth it is so minute that it can hardly be noticed.

 

When we take two objects of same masses, I think, as the force between them is the same they get cancelled. Probably... not too sure. As atheist.

 

gagsrcool

[Dr. Zimski]

I think this would make sense...

 

In a null-G enviroment (in other words, space), tiny loose particles, such as dirt, tend to "clump" together. It would be my best guess that that is the gravitational force of the tiny particles acting on each other.

[JustStuit]

Isn't that how the planets and such formed, gravity between many particles which kept adding and adding? It does seem strange for tiny specks to gravitate eachother but it would be relativity weak because of their masses.

[insane_alien]

In a null-G enviroment (in other words, space)

 

Oh space is full of gravity. its everywhere, just that things in space are in freefall and don't notice.

[Klaynos]

Oh space is full of gravity. its everywhere, just that things in space are in freefall and don't notice.

 

They DO feel it, but things in orbit are in free fall and things inside them are also in free fall. if I put you inside a metal box and drop you from a plane you would experance the same weightlessness that astranauts do. It's just that you're not moving perpendicular to gravity fast enough to maintain an orbit so will hit the ground...

[Dr. Zimski]

Isn't that how the planets and such formed, gravity between many particles which kept adding and adding? It does seem strange for tiny specks to gravitate eachother but it would be relativity weak because of their masses.

Yep, that's the theory. I kinda find it a little confusing to, but I hope this can explain it further...

 

When you stand on a spinning platform and hold two lead wieghts away from you, you will start to spin faster as you draw the wieghts closer to yourself. According to E=mc^2, the increased speed will increase your mass, and thus increase your gravitational force. The same concept works for the particles of dust and rock that created the Earth. Though, a person who actually go to college for physics might explain it better then me.

[swansont]

According to E=mc^2, the increased speed will increase your mass, and thus increase your gravitational force.

 

Unfortunately that's the wrong application of the equation. Rest mass is the relevant quantity.

[kkris1]

Hello,

My question is: what is physically causing this "attraction" ; in the micro-micro scale there must be some connection between the particles to cause attraction. My point is there is no attraction and no magical connection between all the particles in the universe. What we perceive as "attraction" might be actually pushing force. When you try to block the water drain when emptying a sink, you can feel " attracting " force , which is actually pushing of water and atmospheric pressure

regards

kris

Hi' date='

 

I have not gone throught the paper yet, but I think I know the answer to your question.

Take two entities say the Earth and a ball. When both are separated over a certain distance, we clearly see the force of attraction of the Earth over the ball but not vice-versa. That is due to their respective masses. The mass of the Earth is huge when compared to the ball. So, even though the force of the ball acts on the Earth it is so minute that it can hardly be noticed.

 

When we take two objects of same masses, I think, as the force between them is the same they get cancelled. Probably... not too sure. As atheist.

 

gagsrcool[/quote']

[Klaynos]

We speculate bassed on observations of photons mediating the Electro-magnetic force, that gravity is mediated by a particle called the graviton, these have yet to be observed due to how weak gravity is. These particles move at the speed of light and are massless.

[kkris1]

What about simpler explanation ? (Think how many " gravitons" a particle would have to emit to contact every other particle in universe)

See my original attachement

Regards

kris

 

We speculate bassed on observations of photons mediating the Electro-magnetic force, that gravity is mediated by a particle called the graviton, these have yet to be observed due to how weak gravity is. These particles move at the speed of light and are massless.

[JustStuit]

I think that topic is still a big mystery. Scientists aren't even sure about the hypothesized gravitons. I read an interesting article about it, I'll try to find it.

[CPL.Luke]

I did look at your original attachment, and I think the reason why you got your answer was that by postulating that there is some net inward flow of "energy" which creates a force pointing toward the center on anything outside of the center is essentially the same thing as saying that a vector field eminates from any sphere outward (which is what newton did).

 

 

the solution will come out the same either way, neither one is really simpler or more accurate as they are both abstract ideas, that say the same thing.

 

also are you familiar with General Relativity? it postulates that the gravitational field is really the curvature of space time. Since the theory of general relativity covers more scenarios and produces more accurate predictions it can be considered to be a more accurate depiction of the universe

[kkris1]

But really it is a huge difference. First of all you do not need to put up with the forces acting at a distance , you could explain ever acceleration of expantion of the universe, so far unexplained slowing down of spaceships, no need to introduce dark/gray matter etc

Besides what happened to the enormous amount of energy being constantly emited from all stars and galaxies for bilions of years? Also my hypothesis can be proven by measuring so calld " gravity constant" , say on the surface of the Earth and in the deep mine shaft. There sould be small but measurable difference.

Regarding General relativity, I do not agree with it , there are more and more compelling evidences it is not correct. Even the nature of photon (energy proportional to its frequency) could be explained using wave theory.

Can send you paper about it

[CPL.Luke]

if you turned up with the same equation than you can't explain any new phenomena

 

they really are the same thing, one is a negative vector pointing outward and one is a possitive vector pointing inward.

 

EDit: are you reffering to the gravitational constant as in big G or little g?

 

also there is no radiating energy of the gravitational field (unless its general relativity), work is only done when the field acts on an object for a distance. Also the photon is not part of GR, but instead belongs to quantum field theory and it explains alot.

 

furthermore what evidence is there against general relativity?

[kkris1]

Well, you can measure the force acting upon a mass and the force is directly proportional to that mass, so your equation must agree with what is being measured. Copernicus also came to conclusion that Earth is rotating around the sun contrary to common belief (using geocentral model ancient scientists could calculate correctly e.g solar eclipses , even if their underlaying theory was wrong)

Gravity constant is always G (6.67x10exp-11... and is not so constant

[patcalhoun]

Well' date=' you can measure the force acting upon a mass and the force is directly proportional to that mass, so your equation must agree with what is being measured. Copernicus also came to conclusion that Earth is rotating around the sun contrary to common belief (using geocentral model ancient scientists could calculate correctly e.g solar eclipses , even if their underlaying theory was wrong)

Gravity constant is always G (6.67x10exp-11... and is not so constant[/quote']

 

Where did that last part about the gravitational constant come from?

[kkris1]

That is the copy from some info from internet

 

 

Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.

[swansont]

Experimental differences are not the same thing as a time-varying value (i.e. not a constant). I think G is the worst-determined physical constant, in part because it's hard to do.

[gcol]

Re: "forces of attraction at microscales".

 

I remember Van Der Waals force being quoted in this context. Gravity is not the only game in town. It is possible that gravity comes into effect only when such microscale forces have done (and are still doing) their work. Perhaps gravity is merely the sum total of micro-forces.

 

Very humbly and quietly suggested.

[CPL.Luke]

also I didn't see where in your equation kkris you could solve for a varying G

[kkris1]

Yes , you right if you stick to good old theory...

[kkris1]

That is the point, I do not agree with the theory ; I wanted to show that in particular case when mases are relatively small, we can get same results as using newtonian eqation. Things could be different however if the mases are relatively big and we need to use parts of the Taylor series of higher orders

 

 

also I didn't see where in your equation kkris you could solve for a varying G

[CPL.Luke]

could you please enlighten me then?