Gravity and pressure.

[Гера�им]

Maybe, gravity between material bodies to try to explain the difference of pressures generated by the flow of all partticles, including particles vacuum, as under the action of the law Bernoulli, our Sun is a massive ball of gas, in General its rotation is higher than in thesurrounding bodies,the speed of the particle flux is highest in the surrounding area, because the closer to the Sun, the more gravity so forth, their rotation of the Central Black hole creates greater pressure difference and therefore greater gravity

[Mordred]

are you trying to say pressure causes gravity? if so you have that backwards. The energy density of matter exerts no pressure see the equations of state cosmology w=0. However the stress energy tenser due to gravity can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

the higher energy-density of mass causes gravity, this increases the stress energy tenser, the fluid influences of the stress energy tenser is covered in this article

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

[imatfaal]

Maybe, gravity between material bodies to try to explain the difference of pressures generated by the flow of all partticles, including particles vacuum, as under the action of the law Bernoulli, our Sun is a massive ball of gas, in General its rotation is higher than in thesurrounding bodies,the speed of the particle flux is highest in the surrounding area, because the closer to the Sun, the more gravity so forth, their rotation of the Central Black hole creates greater pressure difference and therefore greater gravity

 

The problem with this idea is that gravity is not shielded by massive objects - it adds up (ie a massive planet behind the sun will affect the gravity felt towards the centre). So your flow of particles must affect the sun but must also pass straight through without interacting. Our calculations of binary and larger number systems match very well with observations - if gravity was due to some flux or pressure then we would note different orbits around the common barycentre in muti-stellar systems.

[Гера�им]

are you trying to say pressure causes gravity? if so you have that backwards. The energy density of matter exerts no pressure see the equations of state cosmology w=0. However the stress energy tenser due to gravity can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

the higher energy-density of mass causes gravity, this increases the stress energy tenser, the fluid influences of the stress energy tenser is covered in this article

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

The pressure inside of stars is caused by processes in the visible matter, and pressure from the external side of the stars caused by the visible matter and dark matter. Pressure diffrence between inside and outside of the stars can perceived as gravity.Maybe.

[Strange]

I wonder if anyone has considered this before (and discarded it) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

[Sensei]

I wonder if anyone has considered this before (and discarded it) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

 

Very quantum friendly.

 

So the same initial Newtons light theory, that was also particle-like (but he used corpuscle word instead of nowadays particle)

[Mordred]

The pressure inside of stars is caused by processes in the visible matter, and pressure from the external side of the stars caused by the visible matter and dark matter. Pressure diffrence between inside and outside of the stars can perceived as gravity.Maybe.

 

an asteroid has no internal processes to cause pressure and yet it exerts a gravitational force, if gravity was the result of pressure differences then asteroids would exert no gravity. So this idea doesn't work. As I stated above ordinary matter causes negligible pressure. see the equations of state.

 

the energy-density of dark matter is also extremely low you can only measure dark matter on very large scales. the energy density of dark matter within a solar system would be insignificant. (also does not exert any pressure) its equation of state is also w=0. Yet it also exerts a gravitational force even though it has no pressure.

I wonder if anyone has considered this before (and discarded it) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

yes its been considered before and found not to work the last paragraph explains some of the problems.

 

The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the 20th century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".[59][60]

Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007).[67]

A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[68]

 

As this states there have been numerous attempts to revitalize this model.

 

also Lesage particles must be superluminal that's also mentioned on the same page

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mordred

[Ophiolite]

I find two points of interest here.

 

1. Thoughtful and creative individuals often come up, independently, with ideas that were seriously considered decades, or centuries before, but then discarded through lack of evidence, or contrary evidence. This is a credit to those individuals.

 

2. When this is explained to them they have one of two reactions. One group says, "Ah! I see. That's very interesting. I have learned something." Many of this group go on to become scientists.

 

The second group say "No. I don't think so. Science has been wrong before." Many of this group go on to become cranks and woo-woos and internet trolls.

[Mordred]

I find two points of interest here.

 

1. Thoughtful and creative individuals often come up, independently, with ideas that were seriously considered decades, or centuries before, but then discarded through lack of evidence, or contrary evidence. This is a credit to those individuals.

 

2. When this is explained to them they have one of two reactions. One group says, "Ah! I see. That's very interesting. I have learned something." Many of this group go on to become scientists.

 

The second group say "No. I don't think so. Science has been wrong before." Many of this group go on to become cranks and woo-woos and internet trolls.

 

 

I agree I follow the philosophy of study everything and every model I come across I always learn something, even with models that I know are incorrect. Some of the metric examples are quite handy if used in other applications. However care must be used to realize which models are more correct than others. Its easy to get confused when some model states it solves a problem and therefore its better than the concordance model of a particular field. I try to ignore such claims, there is reasons why the various models are the concordance models, the simple reason is they are more successful in making predictions and conforming to evidence.

[Гера�им]

Asteroid also is made up of atoms,but there's no orderly processes,such as on stars or planets and gravity is smaller.

[Mordred]

yes asteroids are made up of atoms but they are in a stable configuration. You can either learn the equations of state or you can choose to ignore it, Either way matter exerts no pressure. This is a well known Equation of state. W=0 (these equations of state are compatible with general relativity)

 

here is a good example I recall from another forum, that I am also a member of here he correlates hydrogen gas at 1000 degree kelvin and shows negligible pressure. A solid such as an asteroid would have far less pressure. (this is one of the best examples, I've come across)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4718263&postcount=23

 

note this also includes the correlations to Einsteins field equations which the FLRW metric is 100% compatible with.

here is another set of calculations that show the EoS of matter as being w=o which means pressure=0

http://www.ir.isas.jaxa.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf page 6 and page 8

 

I've also referred you to the stress energy tenser of GR in the Mathius Blau general relativity article. please note he also has a cosmology section page 737 equation 34.17 where he states w=0 as well, chapter 6 shows how the stress energy tensor of gravity affects pressure, (not pressure affects gravity)

 

so now if you wish to continue I suggest you show your math to prove that matter exerts pressure with the ideal gas laws and then causes gravity. Or show a professional peer reviewed article to support your claims. Quite frankly you have not shown any support of your model other than your descriptive, which myself and others have already stated is wrong.

 

ask yourself the question "how would the pressure be sufficient enough to form a star in the first place when w=0 ,pressure-less dust, which includes non relativistic baryonic matter and non baryonic matter? how would an asteroid or a planet form when the dust is pressure less?

 

or lets take another example what about the hot dense state of the early universe? if pressure causes gravity why didn't the early universe collapse? After all the extremely high temperatures, higher energy density and smaller volume means according to the ideal gas laws the pressure is also higher. Therefore according to your idea then the overall force of gravity throughout the early universe would have to be higher as well. This would have caused the universe to collapse before inflation could occur.

 

as I stated show your math and supportive articles (peer reviewed)

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mordred

[Гера�им]

The internet has appeared not so long ago, in our area,I know its bad,I do not know to write a formula,a computer old lot doesn't open, missing letters.

[Mordred]

fair enough, the standard definition is that the greater the mass the greater the force of gravity. The GR manual I posted will cover that, its a good learning reference.

 

[latex]f=\frac{Gm_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex]

 

Newtons universal law of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

 

its always best to learn the standard science before trying to develop a new theory, the situations I posted above are some examples of why pressure does not work in being the cause of gravity. As strange posted pressure has been considered before and found not to work.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mordred

[Гера�им]

Newton's law does not expain the nature of gravitation force too pressure something compresses the body pressure should be on one side only,if you were to shrink the pressure there is on the other side.

[Mordred]

its not intended to represent the pressure relation, its meant to show the force of gravity, the stress energy tenser chapter 6 of Mathius Blau does in terms of general relativity. You might want to look up what pressure means.

 

Pressure (symbol: p or P) is the ratio of force to the area over which that force is distributed.

Newton's law does not expain the nature of gravitation force too pressure something compresses the body pressure should be on one side only,if you were to shrink the pressure there is on the other side.

 

use newtons formula to calculate the force of gravity then you use this formula. Why do you think the weight of water has pressure???

[latex]p= \frac { f }{ A }[/latex]

 

does the term pounds per square inch mean anything to you ? in order to have weight you need gravity.

 

gravity can cause pressure because it exerts a force, pressure is force divided by area. Particles can also cause pressure through the force of their interactions in a given area, however for a solid the effective force of interactions is effectively zero in terms of pressure w=0. Atoms in a solid are in a set configuration so are considered as non interacting, Non interacting particles exerts zero force therefore no pressure.

 

You've just proven to me that you don't know basic physics if you don't know this relation. I suggest studying before trying to invent a model.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Mordred

[Гера�им]

Thank you.Law nature is one and a black hole,and for,the water swirt or cyclone,only force their cause different nature.Maybe to apply the Bernoulli law for gravity,considering the space of special liguid.In this salt ideas,and not the formula of Newton and pressure that you wrote.

[Endy0816]

There can be gravity without pressure. Objects in a vacuum still fall.

 

What is the relationship of a black hole to a cyclone?

 

They don't look anything alike...

Edited July 16, 2014 by Endy0816

[Strange]

What is the relationship of a black hole to a cyclone?

 

They don't look anything alike...

 

Especially as the simplest model of a black hole (Schwarzschild) is not rotating.

[Mordred]

Thank you.Law nature is one and a black hole,and for,the water swirt or cyclone,only force their cause different nature.Maybe to apply the Bernoulli law for gravity,considering the space of special liguid.In this salt ideas,and not the formula of Newton and pressure that you wrote.

the others covered the BH analogy, I will cover Bernoulli law, which also uses Newtonian gravity and pressure, it does not state pressure creates gravity.

 

"The relevant Forces for Bernoulli’s equation are gravity and pressure" page 6

 

http://www.cs.cdu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/eng247/sect04.pdf

 

by the way this requires a streamline, so it will not work for solids. So it cannot be used to describe how a planet or an asteroid has gravity.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mordred

[Гера�им]

Especially as the simplest model of a black hole (Schwarzschild) is not rotating.

[/

quote] Written is one of the reasons of gravitation course it is not the only,rotating celestial bodies create more gravity then stationary under egual condittions.

[Mordred]

 

Written is one of the reasons of gravitation course it is not the only,rotating celestial bodies create more gravity then stationary under egual condittions.

 

 

 

gravity and centrifugal force are unrelated, yes you can simulate artificial gravity by centrifugal force but this is NOT gravity. There is no connection between the two. Gravity is caused by mass, not pressure and not by centrifugal acceleration.

 

a 10 solar mass BH will have the same force of gravity regardless if its rotating or not

Edited July 18, 2014 by Mordred