JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 I did mention the center of the mass...Im seriously just missing the friction you see... Isnt gravity measured on the surface of a sphere that radiates out from the center of mass? Dont you just take the full amount of gravity at a certain radius, then figure for gravity per sqaure meter on the surface of that radials sphere...then take the full amount of gravity at the new radius and figure how much energy per sqaure meter again on the surface of the sphere? Gravity always represents the same total amount, it just gets thinned out as you travel away because it has to spread to account for the spread...ugh...is that what your equation figures?
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 You still havent described the problem...I think you cant because you cant...if you dont, this thoery seems solid... The real question occurs to me...where would your understanding be without the knowledge of these prewrittin directives you like to point out instead of using you own words? I don't want to get snooty...But describing something in one's own words is very indicative of true understanding... If I didn't understand physics how would I know what factors apply to your theory to post those articles in the first place. They do relate to your model. Considering the variety of questions you posted throughout this thread. I did mention the center of the mass...Im seriously just missing the friction you see... Isnt gravity measured on the surface of a sphere that radiates out from the center of mass? Dont you just take the full amount of gravity at a certain radius, then figure for gravity per sqaure meter on the surface of that radials sphere...then take the full amount of gravity at the new radius and figure how much energy per sqaure meter again on the surface of the sphere? Gravity always represents the same total amount, it just gets thinned out as you travel away because it has to spread to account for the spread...ugh...is that what your equation figures? Yes that is what that equation is used for Google universal law of gravity for details http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 The one you posted does not show the rate at which gravity decreases though distance away from the source....it shows the total of gravity between two objects...It seems i spend most of my time correcting you...and youre the one whos supposedly knows whats really going on and Im lost...the irony is compressing me To figure the loss of gravity from increasing the distance away from the center of mass does not take 2 objects...it takes 2 different radii. -1
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Your post in 89 is a two body problem. You really need to learn math Here is the steps http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.ksu.edu%2F~dbski%2Fwritings%2Fplanetary.pdf&rct=j&q=keplers%20laws%20pdf&ei=ikCuVP2LMo3_yQSEo4G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNERKXhUjcq8DIiKhxLobebgqftHtw&sig2=JHBfI2EpZAe8PolcTP6sAA&bvm=bv.83134100,d.aWw Your 89 post regarding your test of the force of gravity at the center of mass can be calculated using the method of that link
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Fine prove your model with the mathematics. According to the forum rules
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 The energy of g is 9,81msqaured...That is on the surface of the earth. If i take the radius of the earth, roughly 6371 Km, I would run it through the equation that solves for area of a sphere, to find the total area of the earth at the surface. The equation is simple to solve...no real reason to solve it for this discussion. You would then use that number and multiply by 9.81m sqaured to find the total gravity of earth...then you decide how far away you want to solve for...lets say 25000 km away...You then figure the surface area of a sphere with a 25000 km radius...you divide that amount by total gravity of earth from the smaller radial solution and you now have the stength of gravity is meters sqwuared when youre 25000 km away...tada...i didnt learn that in a class or book....I just thought it up....i did need the equation for the surface of a sphere,,pretty easy I was abiding by the forum rules as much as I could in order to discuss an unproven theory... The big forum rule you should follow is at the very bottom of that page...you dont have to be here...Sorry 1
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Lol what if you don't know the value of g then what? How would you calculate the force of g of say a planet with unknown mass?
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The mechanism of EM is charge. What else drives EM besides charge? What else: the electromagnetic field. But what is charge? It is just a property we can measure and use to build models. That doesn't tell us what it is. And the field is just a mathematical abstraction (that is relatively easy to visualise at a basic level). The mechanism of gravity of mass and the "Einstein field" (space-time). But what is charge? It is just a property we can measure and use to build models. That doesn't tell us what it is. And the field is just a mathematical abstraction (that is slightly harder to visualise but can still be done at a basic level).
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 Why dont you tell me how? whats the difference? Im not here to talk about figuring g for unknown masses.... In my example, I used g because I was just trying to explain to you, how to properly figure gravity loss at a distance...stop laughing...its foolish in your position... You are just once again enjoying throwing this forum topic into your own...cuz it had nothing to do with figuring g...asking me to answer that is as ridiculous as asking me if i know how to make meatloaf...both mean nothing to the topic...just another sideswipe from you I wish a moderator would look at the nature of your comments...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Your post 89 specifically described two objects in space. With a gravitational force between them with a common center of mass. That Is the formula I provided. Here http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation maybe this will be easier for you. My comments lol all I have stated is that you need to study and learn the math involved.
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 If i take the radius of the earth, roughly 6371 Km, I would run it through the equation that solves for area of a sphere, to find the total area of the earth at the surface. The equation is simple to solve...no real reason to solve it for this discussion. You would then use that number and multiply by 9.81m sqaured to find the total gravity of earth...then you decide how far away you want to solve for...lets say 25000 km away...You then figure the surface area of a sphere with a 25000 km radius...you divide that amount by total gravity of earth from the smaller radial solution and you now have the stength of gravity is meters sqwuared when youre 25000 km away...tada...i didnt learn that in a class or book....I just thought it up....i did need the equation for the surface of a sphere,,pretty easy. You have derived the inverse-square law from first principles, which is pretty clever. This is a fundamental aspect of Newton's law of gravity. [math]f = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math] However, that turns out to be an approximation that is not appropriate in more complex situations. For example, Newtons law of gravity was unable to correctly describe the motion of Mercury, which was part of the motivation for Einstein and others to come come up with an alternative. p.s. Just a nitpick but 9.8 m/s2 is not "energy". At this level of (not very scientific) discussion that may not really matter, but if you get to a point where you want to present a formal theory, then that sort of error will get attacked quite harshly.
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 What else: the electromagnetic field. But what is charge? It is just a property we can measure and use to build models. That doesn't tell us what it is. And the field is just a mathematical abstraction (that is relatively easy to visualise at a basic level). The mechanism of gravity of mass and the "Einstein field" (space-time). But what is charge? It is just a property we can measure and use to build models. That doesn't tell us what it is. And the field is just a mathematical abstraction (that is slightly harder to visualise but can still be done at a basic level). We can detect and view the curvature of EM fields by putting things with charge into them...charge is a physical trait of mass that determines how it will act in an EMF...so we can physically take a bunch of them to map out regions of EMF and totally discover its curvature...do the same with gravity... Your post 89 specifically described two objects in space. With a gravitational force between them with a common center of mass. That Is the formula I provided. Here http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Law-of-Universal-Gravitation maybe this will be easier for you. My comments lol all I have stated is that you need to study and learn the math involved. And I said...very logically that i did not use that math to get here...Im speaking in terms that you cant speak in because you dont get it...not the other way around... 1
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 We can detect and view the curvature of EM fields by putting things with charge into them...charge is a physical trait of mass that determines how it will act in an EMF...so we can physically take a bunch of them to map out regions of EMF and totally discover its curvature...do the same with gravity... And we do exactly the same with space time curvature - we directly measure it as gravity, gravitational time dilation, etc. We can even directly measure the frame grabbing ("twisting" of space time) as the Earth rotates.
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 Ok...lets see your equation that determines the decrease in gravity as one increases distance from the source... And we do exactly the same with space time curvature - we directly measure it as gravity, gravitational time dilation, etc. We can even directly measure the frame grabbing ("twisting" of space time) as the Earth rotates. OK....ill make a map of an EMF on my work bench and take a picture...you do the same with gravity and send me the picture...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 You have derived the inverse-square law from first principles, which is pretty clever. This is a fundamental aspect of Newton's law of gravity. [math]f = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math] However, that turns out to be an approximation that is not appropriate in more complex situations. For example, Newtons law of gravity was unable to correctly describe the motion of Mercury, which was part of the motivation for Einstein and others to come come up with an alternative. p.s. Just a nitpick but 9.8 m/s2 is not "energy". At this level of (not very scientific) discussion that may not really matter, but if you get to a point where you want to present a formal theory, then that sort of error will get attacked quite harshly. Yes your right on that but that's due to space time geometry. You need to use that calculation to know how strong a force of gravity is at a given radius so that you can use that value in your lorentz transformation.
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Ok...lets see your equation that determines the decrease in gravity as one increases distance from the source... I just did, where I congratulated you for working it out intuitively. If you can't even recognise 1/r2 as what you described, then you have a long way to go. OK....ill make a map of an EMF on my work bench and take a picture...you do the same with gravity and send me the picture... I already posted a crude 2D representation of the warping of 3D space - you were quite thrilled by it, if I remember. Your EM field case is easier, because you are looking at something 2D and then drawing it in 2D. Edited January 8, 2015 by Strange
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I just did, where I congratulated you for working it out intuitively. I already posted a crude 2D representation of the warping of 3D space - you were quite thrilled by it, if I remember. Your EM field case is easier, because you are looking at something 2D and then drawing it in 2D. Ok yes...and here's the thing...have you realized that i described that model really well without GR equations? I predicted it..and it seems as if it being blown off to coicindence... but that NON coincidence was the point of this topic..."i have a new way to model GR"...without math or equations and I did it... Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Ok yes...and here's the thing...have you realized that i described that model really well without GR equations? But you don't need GR to describe that. I imagine most people have figured it out for themselves at some point. It is fairly obvious so much so that I was shocked when I first found out that that there are fields and forces don't follow an inverse square law.
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 But you don't need GR to describe that. I imagine most people have figured it out for themselves at some point. It is fairly obvious so much so that I was shocked when I first found out that that there are fields and forces don't follow an inverse square law. I didnt mention the inverse sqaure law in the opening post...that came 8 pages later when mordred couldnt tell me how to figure gravity at distances...which the equation he posted did not... Can you read the experiement on entry 89 to see what he was asking about and why we then needed to figure gravity at distances from center? To tellyou the truth, i couldnt have even told you what the inverse square law was...mordred mentioned it, then you and then i figured out I had used it.. I just did, where I congratulated you for working it out intuitively. If you can't even recognise 1/r2 as what you described, then you have a long way to go. But im the one who had to accurately desribe this to mordred? I have a long way to go? I think ive been doing pretty good... Its like you all believe that all proponents of GR don't disagree on anything about GR...but, oh boy...do they ever...You cant even get a group of guys who all know it and love it to agree about everything within everything about it...has that been your experience? GR meetings are fulled with peaceful discourse and aligned ideas? Man...That has not been my experience in groups of people who all claimed to know and support GR,,, So gimme a break...everything can be argued...i was looking for discussion...that kinda means we all go in the same direction...agreeing to full listen and fully acknowledge what the other person has to say...but if i dont get to talk at all because I dont have math to back up things yet, then ill shut up and leave....
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 You described the radius relation of one body. I described the relation between two bodies. Two bodies have a shared center of mass. If you have two identically massive bodies the common center of gravity is half the distance between them. Not at the center of each body. In this case the force of gravity is strongest at the Common center of gravity. This point can be in open space Hence the references to the shell theorem and keplers laws
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Can you read the experiement on entry 89 to see what he was asking about and why we then needed to figure gravity at distances from center? I actually have a lot to say about this (I didn't see it before) but I don't have much time right now. Firstly, I suspect that calculating the total space-time curvature between two objects is very hard, even when they are stationary. (If they are orbiting each other, then my understanding is that it cannot be solved analytically.) You can use your/Newton's inverse square law to calculate that the net force is zero. But I'm not sure that means the space time curvature is zero. (For example the net gravitational force at the center of the Earth is zero, but the space-time curvature is maximal.) So we can't come up with a quantitative (i.e. scientific) test from your idea unless we can predict exactly what the magnitude of the effect is. For example, we can look at existing pairs of bodies in space (Sun-Earth or Earth-Moon, for example) and see that there is no wormhole created there. So how large do the masses need to be? How far apart do they need to be? Could we do it in a lab with two large weights? Do they need to be planets, stars, galaxies? Galaxies are bigger but further apart - are they more or less likely to meet your requirements? Which galaxies are big enough? And on and on. You are not going to get anyone to lend you their spaceship and team of scientists until you can answer questions like this. Ultimately, this is why science relies on mathematics - why a theory must be mathematical. One way we could test your idea is to use GR to calculate what theory predicts would happen. But if you think GR is wrong, then that doesn't help.
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 But you don't need GR to describe that. I imagine most people have figured it out for themselves at some point. It is fairly obvious so much so that I was shocked when I first found out that that there are fields and forces don't follow an inverse square law. So truly...are you telling me that you had envisioned a grid of lines being pulled into a mass to represent einsteins geometry? And youre saying that most physicists allready intuitively know and understand the curvature and how it appears, and the math is just the next step in that understanding? You described the radius relation of one body. Where did i describe that? Do you know how many times today you have drifted from subject and made incorrect assertions and claims? I think I must be done with that...
Strange Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) So truly...are you telling me that you had envisioned a grid of lines being pulled into a mass to represent einsteins geometry? And youre saying that most physicists allready intuitively know and understand the curvature and how it appears, and the math is just the next step in that understanding? Firstly, we were (or I was) talking about your description terms of spheres and their surface areas. That is the inverse square law that I said was obvious. (That can be derived from GR, but it isn't simple.) Secondly, people's mental image of space-time curvature (including your idea and the picture I posted) all come from the mathematics, not the other way round. If you tell me that you came up with the idea of space-time being curved and compressed without ever having read anything about Einstein or GR then I won't believe you. Even Einstein had to do a lot of (mathematical) work before he could understand that was what was required. Edited January 8, 2015 by Strange
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Yeesh your flying around in your spaceship. You want to calculate the force of gravity between your spaceship and the planet you are orbiting. What formula would you use? Lets ignore the second planet.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now