You're rationale is too 2-dimensional to describe what gravity is or how it works. In some way or another (yet to be fully discovered), gravity is intertwined with space and time. It might help to start thinking more 3-dimensionally (maybe more!) to get further insight. In a space-time plane, gravity is the curvature of that plane around dense objects. Kind of like putting a heavy ball in the middle of a trampoline. Now put a smaller ball anywhere else on the trampoline, and it will roll towards the heavy ball because of the 'curvature' inward of the plane.
OOps... Darn enter key...
Anyway... Time to take the gloves off I think...;-)
Whether or not you're going to get what I am about to say I don't know... Though you might scoff at it like the physics Lecturer's did, but, what the hell....
Right...
All the universe is, at the end of the day, is energy.... (The type and form at this level (I.e the lowest possible) do not matter). The total amount of energy in the universe, as described by the law of energy conservation, does not change - (though if it does, all hell would break loose!)... This means that the most basic equation there is, is simply:
E=E
Okay, now the energy that makes up the universe has one distinguishing feature:
It's in motion...
This means that (aside from the type of energy, which like I said does not need to apply at this level), EVERYTHING is an energy transfer matter, and because of that, there are only two variables that matter:
DIRECTION and RATE (of transfer).
Space is the area over which the energy occupies and moves...
Time is the rate at which it moves... (Which we measure relative to the speed of light etc....).
The reason WHY gravity affects Spce and time, is that it affects both the direction and rate of the transfer of energy surrounding the area of an abject of mass... Now, in this case, we KNOW that the rate of acceleration is constant, aswell as the direction being consistent. The reason I said that this is the case, is becauise the AREA is also consistent - (i.e. area vs rate).
The problem people have, is that gravity is SUCH a different form of energy transfer, from, say electromagnetic energy etc... But they try to apply the same rules and laws, when they are working in different ways, and more importantly, at different levels...
Like I said, the energy this universe contains is in motion - (if it wasn't, nothing would happen), and I think that gravity is one part of the MAIN energy transfer systems that governs the universe... (I.e ENERGY IN, Energy used, energy out, energy used, ENERGY IN... Etc...). It's just that some people can't seem to thinkl of the universe is such a basic fashion, and I can understand why, but Gravity IS basic - nothing else explains it's consistency and efficientcy... Gravity, at this time, is in a league of it's own....
Anyway... Time to take the gloves off I think...;-)
Whether or not you're going to get what I am about to say I don't know... Though you might scoff at it like the physics Lecturer's did, but, what the hell....
Right...
All the universe is, at the end of the day, is energy.... (The type and form at this level (I.e the lowest possible) do not matter). The total amount of energy in the universe, as described by the law of energy conservation, does not change - (though if it does, all hell would break loose!)... This means that the most basic equation there is, is simply:
E=E
Okay, now the energy that makes up the universe has one distinguishing feature:
It's in motion...
This means that (aside from the type of energy, which like I said does not need to apply at this level), EVERYTHING is an energy transfer matter, and because of that, there are only two variables that matter:
DIRECTION and RATE (of transfer).
Space is the area over which the energy occupies and moves...
Time is the rate at which it moves... (Which we measure relative to the speed of light etc....).
The reason WHY gravity affects Spce and time, is that it affects both the direction and rate of the transfer of energy surrounding the area of an abject of mass... Now, in this case, we KNOW that the rate of acceleration is constant, aswell as the direction being consistent. The reason I said that this is the case, is becauise the AREA is also consistent - (i.e. area vs rate).
The problem people have, is that gravity is SUCH a different form of energy transfer, from, say electromagnetic energy etc... But they try to apply the same rules and laws, when they are working in different ways, and more importantly, at different levels...
Like I said, the energy this universe contains is in motion - (if it wasn't, nothing would happen), and I think that gravity is one part of the MAIN energy transfer systems that governs the universe... (I.e ENERGY IN, Energy used, energy out, energy used, ENERGY IN... Etc...). It's just that some people can't seem to thinkl of the universe is such a basic fashion, and I can understand why, but Gravity IS basic - nothing else explains it's consistency and efficientcy... Gravity, at this time, is in a league of it's own....
Sorry if this post is a little long, but I just stumbled across this thread and a number of things struck me as interesting. These are just my opinions and I would be happy to hear any other opinions about them. I am always open to rethink my ideas and none of these statements is intended in any way to criticize a person. I use names in some places just to simplify addressing certain points raised in the discussion.
As for the first post, this is an interesting theory and shows good creative thinking that is often helpful in solving a scientific question. But after such a brainstorming session, it is important to reconcile your hypothesis with what is known and accepted. Focusing on the issue of gravity, the biggest problem with your theory is that (as I understand it) gravity would be affected by the surface area of an object, not it's mass. As I read your hypothesis, a hollow sphere would be affected by the same amount of pressure as a filled sphere, but experiments involving gravity show that not to be the case. The only way I could reconcile the two would be to consider all mass to be permeable by these forces (fire hoses), but then where would the pressure come from?
In reference to Shalmanese: You bring up some very interesting points. Your billiard ball example has been studied by scientists, statisticians, and philosophers for an awful long time. In statistics, you describe the null theory. The null theory states that no matter how many time a cause appears to lead to an effect, it is just coincidence. The null theory is the reason that we can never be 100% sure of anything. The fact that the sun has risen and set in similar fashion for millennia might just be a coincidence and tomorrow it might be completely different. This is the reason scientists have limits of probability. They are known as standard deviations. As long as results fall within a certain acceptable deviation, they are accepted as most likely true. The less, the deviation, the more likely they are to be true. But the results are asymptotic. In the real world, no results match the theory 100%. If they appear to, it is because not enough experiments (i.e. coincidence). To take this to the next level, you describe reality and how we can ever known something. I don't see how understanding the "natural universe" is any different from knowing anything else. How do you exist? How do you know that what you see, smell, taste, fell is real. (Think the Matrix here, it brings out a lot of good points). On an absolute level, you're right; we know nothing and understand nothing. On a practical level, we manage to survive in this world because we observe what has happened before and make predictions about what we think will happen next. We assume (probably correctly) that if we jump off the Empire State Building, we will fall and die. We aren't 100% certain of this, but it's enough of a probability to allow us to make a decision. In summary, it is true that science cannot give you a 100% certain answer of the truth about the billiard balls, but it can give you a probability.
WinstonSmith on a similar topic, knowing how something comes about is as close to knowing what it IS as we can get in the real world. Knowing what something IS aside from our perception of it and our understanding of how it came to be and functions in this universe is something of pure theory for philosophers. It is known as the essence of the object.
DrPizza: You mention that gravity is the weakest force. Actually it's al a matter of distance. Each of the four forces can be considered strongest within certain limits of distance and on certain forms of matter and energy.
grant2: Interesting point, but keep in mind your reference frame. What breaks the egg is that it and the rock collided. You can see it from either end. The difference between the crow and the human is that the crow can easily fly to a few hundred feet to drop the egg while the human can't. The crow does not have the dexterity of the human to pick up the rock and hit the egg with it. What you see here is two intelligent beings each trying determining the best way to achieve the same goal. On is not necessarily more efficient than the other. I agree with what I think is your basic point, though, that humans have more brainpower and can thus analyze more possibilities. Especially when our communication and specialization have advanced to the level they are at now.
KRandor: You have an interesting point. Laws of conservation can be very helpful and they are good to keep in mind, but it is too easy to assume we know all the forms of conversion. You can think of matter and energy as related since one can be converted into the other. But be careful with your assumption that energy is the most basic, simplest form. Remember that at one time, the atom was considered the smallest form of matter and could neither be destroyed nor divided. There are plenty of theoretical physicists out there theorizing levels of existence below matter and energy as we know them. I believe in the most basic level of conservation that states that nothing can be destroyed. But it can be converted into another thing. We will probably never know or even be able to perceive all the things that matter and energy can be converted into, so from our perception, things do appear to be destroyed because they cease to exist as we knew them. Energy is indeed in motion in our universe, and gravity is a form of motion of energy, which I guess you could say makes it
"one part of the MAIN energy transfer systems that governs the universe," but I fail to see how that puts gravity "in a league of it's own." Seeing how there are many other parts, discovered and undiscovered, which may, or may not play more of a role.
As for the first post, this is an interesting theory and shows good creative thinking that is often helpful in solving a scientific question. But after such a brainstorming session, it is important to reconcile your hypothesis with what is known and accepted. Focusing on the issue of gravity, the biggest problem with your theory is that (as I understand it) gravity would be affected by the surface area of an object, not it's mass. As I read your hypothesis, a hollow sphere would be affected by the same amount of pressure as a filled sphere, but experiments involving gravity show that not to be the case. The only way I could reconcile the two would be to consider all mass to be permeable by these forces (fire hoses), but then where would the pressure come from?
In reference to Shalmanese: You bring up some very interesting points. Your billiard ball example has been studied by scientists, statisticians, and philosophers for an awful long time. In statistics, you describe the null theory. The null theory states that no matter how many time a cause appears to lead to an effect, it is just coincidence. The null theory is the reason that we can never be 100% sure of anything. The fact that the sun has risen and set in similar fashion for millennia might just be a coincidence and tomorrow it might be completely different. This is the reason scientists have limits of probability. They are known as standard deviations. As long as results fall within a certain acceptable deviation, they are accepted as most likely true. The less, the deviation, the more likely they are to be true. But the results are asymptotic. In the real world, no results match the theory 100%. If they appear to, it is because not enough experiments (i.e. coincidence). To take this to the next level, you describe reality and how we can ever known something. I don't see how understanding the "natural universe" is any different from knowing anything else. How do you exist? How do you know that what you see, smell, taste, fell is real. (Think the Matrix here, it brings out a lot of good points). On an absolute level, you're right; we know nothing and understand nothing. On a practical level, we manage to survive in this world because we observe what has happened before and make predictions about what we think will happen next. We assume (probably correctly) that if we jump off the Empire State Building, we will fall and die. We aren't 100% certain of this, but it's enough of a probability to allow us to make a decision. In summary, it is true that science cannot give you a 100% certain answer of the truth about the billiard balls, but it can give you a probability.
WinstonSmith on a similar topic, knowing how something comes about is as close to knowing what it IS as we can get in the real world. Knowing what something IS aside from our perception of it and our understanding of how it came to be and functions in this universe is something of pure theory for philosophers. It is known as the essence of the object.
DrPizza: You mention that gravity is the weakest force. Actually it's al a matter of distance. Each of the four forces can be considered strongest within certain limits of distance and on certain forms of matter and energy.
grant2: Interesting point, but keep in mind your reference frame. What breaks the egg is that it and the rock collided. You can see it from either end. The difference between the crow and the human is that the crow can easily fly to a few hundred feet to drop the egg while the human can't. The crow does not have the dexterity of the human to pick up the rock and hit the egg with it. What you see here is two intelligent beings each trying determining the best way to achieve the same goal. On is not necessarily more efficient than the other. I agree with what I think is your basic point, though, that humans have more brainpower and can thus analyze more possibilities. Especially when our communication and specialization have advanced to the level they are at now.
KRandor: You have an interesting point. Laws of conservation can be very helpful and they are good to keep in mind, but it is too easy to assume we know all the forms of conversion. You can think of matter and energy as related since one can be converted into the other. But be careful with your assumption that energy is the most basic, simplest form. Remember that at one time, the atom was considered the smallest form of matter and could neither be destroyed nor divided. There are plenty of theoretical physicists out there theorizing levels of existence below matter and energy as we know them. I believe in the most basic level of conservation that states that nothing can be destroyed. But it can be converted into another thing. We will probably never know or even be able to perceive all the things that matter and energy can be converted into, so from our perception, things do appear to be destroyed because they cease to exist as we knew them. Energy is indeed in motion in our universe, and gravity is a form of motion of energy, which I guess you could say makes it
"one part of the MAIN energy transfer systems that governs the universe," but I fail to see how that puts gravity "in a league of it's own." Seeing how there are many other parts, discovered and undiscovered, which may, or may not play more of a role.
I meant that 'Gravity is in a league of it's own as far as our understanding of the universe goes at this time...') - (Sorry for not making that clear).
The reason why I use 'Energy' as a 'catch-all' term for describing the contents of the entire universe, is because it is the only term we have which works at all levels... Yes, energy can have different forms - a lot of which we simply do not know about/understand at this time, but at the lowest level, which I'm describing here, form is not as importanct, though as the level raises, it becomes extremely important...
The whole point about the law of conservation, is that it is probably the only law we have that governs everything we know of so far - (I actually think quantum physics has gone too far past it, and will probably be reigned in at some point as our understanding increases - damn theory of uncertainty, a lot of people take it to the extreme...:-/ )
P.S. all matter is, is a collection of differing forms of energy working 'together'... (There is no matter AND energy - just energy of differing forms). As we work our way through the different levels, the forms of energy we find tend to get more efficient - (Mass- (i.e. the highest level) is created by inefficiency) - and the photon and neutrons etc are about as efficient as we know of atm (Well, as far as I am aware, though my knowledge is probably out-of-date already) - but the point is, is that gravity IS MORE efficient than anything else we know of, which pretty much means it HAS to work at a lower, as yet undiscovered/unknown, level...
Also, following on from where I left off, the reson why, according to what I have said, black holes can exist, is that matter can get SO dense, that they cannot draw enough energy from it's surrounding area, except by drawing it from it's neighbouring 'particles' - which means that the overall speed the entire collection of 'particles' would need the energy, would be faster than any individual 'particle' would use it... (If thats clear enough?). (P.s. - the barrier of light speed is as much to do with efficiency as speed).
The reason why I use 'Energy' as a 'catch-all' term for describing the contents of the entire universe, is because it is the only term we have which works at all levels... Yes, energy can have different forms - a lot of which we simply do not know about/understand at this time, but at the lowest level, which I'm describing here, form is not as importanct, though as the level raises, it becomes extremely important...
The whole point about the law of conservation, is that it is probably the only law we have that governs everything we know of so far - (I actually think quantum physics has gone too far past it, and will probably be reigned in at some point as our understanding increases - damn theory of uncertainty, a lot of people take it to the extreme...:-/ )
P.S. all matter is, is a collection of differing forms of energy working 'together'... (There is no matter AND energy - just energy of differing forms). As we work our way through the different levels, the forms of energy we find tend to get more efficient - (Mass- (i.e. the highest level) is created by inefficiency) - and the photon and neutrons etc are about as efficient as we know of atm (Well, as far as I am aware, though my knowledge is probably out-of-date already) - but the point is, is that gravity IS MORE efficient than anything else we know of, which pretty much means it HAS to work at a lower, as yet undiscovered/unknown, level...
Also, following on from where I left off, the reson why, according to what I have said, black holes can exist, is that matter can get SO dense, that they cannot draw enough energy from it's surrounding area, except by drawing it from it's neighbouring 'particles' - which means that the overall speed the entire collection of 'particles' would need the energy, would be faster than any individual 'particle' would use it... (If thats clear enough?). (P.s. - the barrier of light speed is as much to do with efficiency as speed).
Light has mass krandor. Don't assume since you can't store it in a bottle it doesn't have mass. Now, the mass is VERY little, but it sure as hell is there.
This is a question that could help get to the bottom of this though. What "makes" or "generates" gravity? Is it "made" by the atoms themselves, or is it something a little less obvious?
This is a question that could help get to the bottom of this though. What "makes" or "generates" gravity? Is it "made" by the atoms themselves, or is it something a little less obvious?
Light, as far as we know, does not have mass; and as far as I know none of the current theories about gravity (string theory) assumes that light have mass. In general relativity, which is the most accurate theory of gravity we have, it is a fundamental fact that light does not have mass.
I'm not so sure about energy being the most basic form. Yes, you might say that mass is an organized form of energy, but can't you also say that energy is a disorgnized form of mass? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see where energy is on a more basic level than mass. My point is that energy and mass may not directly convert, but rather there is a more basic component common to both. I believe this is the essence of string theory. As I understand it (very basically), string theorists predict that matter and energy are both made up of strings. Exactly what they define strings to be I get confused on, but the point is that there once again may be a more basic level. Just as we know that water molecules can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen molecules because they share common atoms. This does not necessarily mean that hydrogen and oxygen molecules are just different forms of water. The difference I'm trying to show here is conversion into simpler building blocks as opposed to being made of the same building blocks but in a different pattern.
As far as what makes gravity, I wonder about that too. I know that supposedly any mass produces gravitational forces, but it would be interesting to see just how small a mass we can still detect gravitational forces from.
As far as what makes gravity, I wonder about that too. I know that supposedly any mass produces gravitational forces, but it would be interesting to see just how small a mass we can still detect gravitational forces from.
Doh - did it again - damn enter key...;-)
Light does NOT have mass... Like I said mass is created by INEFFICIENCY. Efficiency is (in my opinion) defined as 'consistency in direction and rate of transfer' - when dealing with any form of energy.
To the person talking about energy itself - DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD ENERGY ACTUALLY MEANS????
In case you don't:
Energy, in physics, is described as: The capacity of a physical system to do work - (In this case the physical system is the Universe itself). The definition of work: The transfer of energy from one physical system to another... (Though to get anywhere with that, we'd have to split the Universe into smaller 'physical systems').
If the Universe was still, it would consist of energy (still), but not be working - I.e. no energy Transfer would be taking place... But because it IS moving, (working), it means that EVERY problem can be dealt with as an Energy Transfer Problem...
Has THAT helped???
Light does NOT have mass... Like I said mass is created by INEFFICIENCY. Efficiency is (in my opinion) defined as 'consistency in direction and rate of transfer' - when dealing with any form of energy.
To the person talking about energy itself - DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD ENERGY ACTUALLY MEANS????
In case you don't:
Energy, in physics, is described as: The capacity of a physical system to do work - (In this case the physical system is the Universe itself). The definition of work: The transfer of energy from one physical system to another... (Though to get anywhere with that, we'd have to split the Universe into smaller 'physical systems').
If the Universe was still, it would consist of energy (still), but not be working - I.e. no energy Transfer would be taking place... But because it IS moving, (working), it means that EVERY problem can be dealt with as an Energy Transfer Problem...
Has THAT helped???
OK, apparently it's been too long since I reviewed the little I know about string theory. You're right about mass being made of energy and not the other way around. Apparently, as I now understand it, the string is only theorized as the most basic particle. The more energy a string has, the more mass it has. So energy and mass are converted on the level of and by way of the string, but energy is still the constant entity. Of course, I wonder then if there can be a string without energy. But as I mentioned before I don't really know much about string theory.
So mass is proportional to the amount of energy in an entity and thus gravity and inertia are also proportional to the amount of energy in the entity which takes the form of mass.
I think I'm getting it figured out. Let me know what you think.
So mass is proportional to the amount of energy in an entity and thus gravity and inertia are also proportional to the amount of energy in the entity which takes the form of mass.
I think I'm getting it figured out. Let me know what you think.
O.K... Time for another lesson...
This time about Mass....
The definition: A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion
Things move when energy is transferred to them. Now, because everything in this universe is indeed moving - (O.k. so that claim's a little bold, but probably true), again, the two variables, Direction and Rate are used to govern that. Efficiency is all about CONSISTENTCY within these two parameters... Photons are efficient because their rate and direction are constant - until it hit's something - then it's direction changes (unlike gravity), (and it's frequency also changes, due to it's transferring some energy to whatever it hits). The reason WHY objects of mass resist movement, is because they are not being 'pushed' efficiently - i.e. All of the object is not being suplied with energy in a constant direction at a constant rate directly - the parts which are not being pushed directly must take their energy from surrounding parts, which are affected directly. However, this means that the rate at which these parts have the energy transferred to them is slower than those parts pushed directily, which creates the inefficiency... If we had an efficient propulstion system - (like gravity in reverse) - then that would not be a problem... In fact, breaking the light barrier should not be a problem then, either...
This time about Mass....
The definition: A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion
Things move when energy is transferred to them. Now, because everything in this universe is indeed moving - (O.k. so that claim's a little bold, but probably true), again, the two variables, Direction and Rate are used to govern that. Efficiency is all about CONSISTENTCY within these two parameters... Photons are efficient because their rate and direction are constant - until it hit's something - then it's direction changes (unlike gravity), (and it's frequency also changes, due to it's transferring some energy to whatever it hits). The reason WHY objects of mass resist movement, is because they are not being 'pushed' efficiently - i.e. All of the object is not being suplied with energy in a constant direction at a constant rate directly - the parts which are not being pushed directly must take their energy from surrounding parts, which are affected directly. However, this means that the rate at which these parts have the energy transferred to them is slower than those parts pushed directily, which creates the inefficiency... If we had an efficient propulstion system - (like gravity in reverse) - then that would not be a problem... In fact, breaking the light barrier should not be a problem then, either...
That definition of mass makes a lot of sense. Now let me see if I can combine that with my current understanding of energy, mass, and gravity. If mass is directly proportional to the amount of energy in an entity then it seems to me that this energy is somehow trapped into this form of mass. It does not travel in a straight line like a photon does, but rather takes the form of vibrations. I'm thinking of a circle with a large number of points in it. Each point is a bit of energy pointed in a particular direction. All the points provide an equal amount of force, but their random directions cancel each other out and therefor the mass of energy does not move (I know this sounds similar to electromagnetism). The difference between two objects of different masses would be that the object with larger mass would therefor have more points of energy in their circle. It seems to me that gravity has a similar effect to magnetism in turning the focus of these points of energy to a point where the object as a whole moves in the direction of other mass. Since this gravity is created out of the existence of mass, it makes since that an object with greater mass would have a greater movement effect than one with less mass. Does any of this make sense?
As far as gravity being affected by density, I think the forces of gravity can be affected by density, but I don't think gravity itself is affected by density. I think it is all a matter of what you call the object and your frame of reference. The farther from the object you are, and the smaller the object is, the more you can use center of mass in determination of gravitational pull. As you get closer to the object in relation to the size of the two objects, you have to consider the distribution of the masses. It may appear that a denser object has more gravity, but I believe that the gravitational force is just concentrated. This is like pointing either a flashlight or a laser at a wall. The laser may appear brighter to a point on the wall, but may have the same energy as the flashlight which has a wider distribution.
As far as gravity being affected by density, I think the forces of gravity can be affected by density, but I don't think gravity itself is affected by density. I think it is all a matter of what you call the object and your frame of reference. The farther from the object you are, and the smaller the object is, the more you can use center of mass in determination of gravitational pull. As you get closer to the object in relation to the size of the two objects, you have to consider the distribution of the masses. It may appear that a denser object has more gravity, but I believe that the gravitational force is just concentrated. This is like pointing either a flashlight or a laser at a wall. The laser may appear brighter to a point on the wall, but may have the same energy as the flashlight which has a wider distribution.
Actually density is the amount of mass packed into a given area so it would be the mass affecting gravity. However, PolymerTim, I don't see the problem of your hollow sphere vs solid sphere. If he was suggesting that all matter is permeable by the "energy" of gravity, it could still hold if you think about the structure of matter. An atom is mostly empty space according to present theory. So if you are considering matter at the atomic or even subatomic level then most of this "energy" would flow through the empty space between "actual matter" or particles. But when the "energy" intersected with a particle, it would then make the energy transfer or be absorbed.
So if you have this "gravitational energy" coming from all directions (though I'm not sure where it would originate from) and providing an energy transfer when it hits actual particles, then you would have a type of shading effect when two or more objects are near eachother. Think of the 2 objects as filters. If you have 1 object alone, then the energy that would be absorbed (though most would just pass through) equally from all directions and so it would be stationary. Of course this gravitational energy would have to be equal from all directions. However, if you place another object near it then the 2 objects would shade eachother slightly and since that would cause less energy or push from the direction of the opposite object, you would then have motion towards eachother.
Tried to make it clear.... also keeping in mind that I'm just exploring here.
So if you have this "gravitational energy" coming from all directions (though I'm not sure where it would originate from) and providing an energy transfer when it hits actual particles, then you would have a type of shading effect when two or more objects are near eachother. Think of the 2 objects as filters. If you have 1 object alone, then the energy that would be absorbed (though most would just pass through) equally from all directions and so it would be stationary. Of course this gravitational energy would have to be equal from all directions. However, if you place another object near it then the 2 objects would shade eachother slightly and since that would cause less energy or push from the direction of the opposite object, you would then have motion towards eachother.
Tried to make it clear.... also keeping in mind that I'm just exploring here.
Almost there.....
Of course the density of an object affects it's gravitational field - if the area decreases, (i.e. density increases), then the rate of transfer must increase to maintain E=E... (Which is why black holes can exist).
Now, as I said before, gravity is caused by an object of mass drawing in energy from it's surrounding area... The only reason I can think that it should do that is that it uses the energy... And the only way I can see it using this energy at that level, is by motion. Because an object would have 'particles' moving in all directions, it would draw in energy in all directions too... So, gravity is the energy in, the 'particles' move, (energy used), then it's just the energy OUT that's the problem - BUT - considering how efficient gravity is, it's possible that it's by-product is also efficient, which is why we cannot detect it.. (We also DETECT things through inefficiency).
Of course the density of an object affects it's gravitational field - if the area decreases, (i.e. density increases), then the rate of transfer must increase to maintain E=E... (Which is why black holes can exist).
Now, as I said before, gravity is caused by an object of mass drawing in energy from it's surrounding area... The only reason I can think that it should do that is that it uses the energy... And the only way I can see it using this energy at that level, is by motion. Because an object would have 'particles' moving in all directions, it would draw in energy in all directions too... So, gravity is the energy in, the 'particles' move, (energy used), then it's just the energy OUT that's the problem - BUT - considering how efficient gravity is, it's possible that it's by-product is also efficient, which is why we cannot detect it.. (We also DETECT things through inefficiency).
That's a good point and I had to think about that one for a bit. Here's my best guess.
Note I did mention the issue of permeability before and now we need to deal with how permeable the mass would have to be to produce a gravity-like effect in this case. The way I see it, if most of the force (water from the fire hoses) intersects with mass in one object then there would be a gradation of intersections through the mass. So if you had a spherical mass alone in the universe and empty space is an ether filled with these point forces which are evenly distributed through space and have an even distribution of direction, but these forces do not occupy the same space as the mass (i.e. they are not inside the mass) then it stands to reason that since some of these point forces apply their energy to points of mass on the outside edge of the sphere, that there is a lower concentration of these forces affecting points of mass internal to the sphere. This assumes that the energy is absorbed into the mass and can no longer directly affect another mass point. So in this semi-permeable case, we find that the mass on the surface of the object plays more of a role than the mass on the inside of the object, thus the gradation in forces. I don't believe this is true according to current science. I believe that the current agreement in science is that all mass is equally affected by gravity, regardless of it's placement or shielding by other mass.
If you increased the permeability to near 100% you might say that this gradient would be insignificant, but then there would also be an insignificant difference in the forces on an object whether or not another object was nearby or not. In other words, if an insignificant amount of the force is actually captured by the mass and 99.999% of the force (water from the fire hoses) actually completely permeates the object and makes it to the other object, then there would be an insignificant difference in the pressure on the second object, whether or not the first was there.
I hope this clears up my opinion on that topic. I believe that there are point forces that cause gravitational force, but it makes more sense that these forces come from within the mass itself, and not from an ether external to the mass. It appears to me now that every point of mass (which is a form of energy) exerts an attractive pull on every other point of mass by affecting the direction of the point forces within that mass. That's my best guess fo now anyway.
Note I did mention the issue of permeability before and now we need to deal with how permeable the mass would have to be to produce a gravity-like effect in this case. The way I see it, if most of the force (water from the fire hoses) intersects with mass in one object then there would be a gradation of intersections through the mass. So if you had a spherical mass alone in the universe and empty space is an ether filled with these point forces which are evenly distributed through space and have an even distribution of direction, but these forces do not occupy the same space as the mass (i.e. they are not inside the mass) then it stands to reason that since some of these point forces apply their energy to points of mass on the outside edge of the sphere, that there is a lower concentration of these forces affecting points of mass internal to the sphere. This assumes that the energy is absorbed into the mass and can no longer directly affect another mass point. So in this semi-permeable case, we find that the mass on the surface of the object plays more of a role than the mass on the inside of the object, thus the gradation in forces. I don't believe this is true according to current science. I believe that the current agreement in science is that all mass is equally affected by gravity, regardless of it's placement or shielding by other mass.
If you increased the permeability to near 100% you might say that this gradient would be insignificant, but then there would also be an insignificant difference in the forces on an object whether or not another object was nearby or not. In other words, if an insignificant amount of the force is actually captured by the mass and 99.999% of the force (water from the fire hoses) actually completely permeates the object and makes it to the other object, then there would be an insignificant difference in the pressure on the second object, whether or not the first was there.
I hope this clears up my opinion on that topic. I believe that there are point forces that cause gravitational force, but it makes more sense that these forces come from within the mass itself, and not from an ether external to the mass. It appears to me now that every point of mass (which is a form of energy) exerts an attractive pull on every other point of mass by affecting the direction of the point forces within that mass. That's my best guess fo now anyway.
Well, yes... density does affect gravity, but I meant that it's not really density because density is just a ratio. Mass / Space. It's really just mass interacting with gravity but when you squeeze a lot of it into a smaller amount of space, then there are more interactions. I was just taking it 1 level down.
PolymerTim, that's a good point. However that's if you are treating the energy as a virtual particle. As in a point of energy intersecting a point of matter (I did this too). What if the graviational energy instead came in the form of a wave? I don't think it would work the same with waves, but I could be wrong.
Any 3 dimensional wave mechanics experts here?
Any 3 dimensional wave mechanics experts here?
I'm still confused by the "gravity is mass pulling in energy" thing. Are you sure that gravity pulls in all forms of energy. I know that black holes also trap light, but they also emit high energy waves. Maybe it's just a question of concentration of the energy so that if energy is concentrated enough, it can overcome the gravitational force of the black hole (dependent upon its mass). I don't see how the energy out is a problem because the energy isn't just used, instead it leaves the mass eventually. While the energy is in the mass, if it cause motion of the entire mass, then it is conserved as kinetic energy. If the object is forced to change its velocity, then the energy is transferred to whatever caused the change.
I still think the density does not directly affect the total gravitational force. It is important to differentiate between force and pressure. Gravity is a force and therefor independent of area. When area is taken into consideration, force becomes pressure (P=F/A). I think often times density appears to affect gravity because the size of very dense objects (like dwarf stars) can belie their true mass. But unless I'm mistaken, a mass m will have the same amount of gravitatinal pull on another object no nmatter what it's density. The only difference would be how focused the gravitational pull would be.
I still think the density does not directly affect the total gravitational force. It is important to differentiate between force and pressure. Gravity is a force and therefor independent of area. When area is taken into consideration, force becomes pressure (P=F/A). I think often times density appears to affect gravity because the size of very dense objects (like dwarf stars) can belie their true mass. But unless I'm mistaken, a mass m will have the same amount of gravitatinal pull on another object no nmatter what it's density. The only difference would be how focused the gravitational pull would be.
Actually I was confused by his "gravity is mass pulling in energy" thing too so I'll wait for him to respond. I was thinking more of just conversion of energy, as in the gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy when it hits matter. Perhaps that would explain the internal heating of celestrial bodies. All the gravitational energy that cannot be converted into kinetic energy because there is equal pressure (from gravity) from the other direction is instead converted into heat energy?
As far as the density thing, I think you two are just thinking at different levels. Density and mass go hand in hand when you are looking at an object as a whole, since distance also has an affect on gravity. Remember it's just a ratio, not an actualy property unless you are looking at a whole object (whatever that means, right?). 2 objects with the same amount of mass but different sizes do not have the same gravitational force since the larger object's mass is spread out over a greater distance which distance weakens gravity. Correct?
As far as the density thing, I think you two are just thinking at different levels. Density and mass go hand in hand when you are looking at an object as a whole, since distance also has an affect on gravity. Remember it's just a ratio, not an actualy property unless you are looking at a whole object (whatever that means, right?). 2 objects with the same amount of mass but different sizes do not have the same gravitational force since the larger object's mass is spread out over a greater distance which distance weakens gravity. Correct?
I think that is close, but not quite right. You have to be careful what distance you are talking about. In simplified models, the only distance needed is the distance between the two centers of mass of the two objects. This pretends that the to objects have almost infinite density and that all their mass is condensed into a single point of negligible size. Of course, in real life, the distribution of mass does make a difference in how the gravitational force is applied. Similar to what you do in calculus, you have to break up a single object of known mass into almost an infinite number of smaller particles of mass (each with almost negligible mass) and calculate the effect of each of those points on each of every point in the other object. This isn't too difficult as long as one of the objects can be considered as a single point (center of mass) but as you can imagine it gets a little more complicated calculating the force effects of many particles on many other particles. In physics this is known as the principle of superposition, which states that the net effect (or force) is the sum of the individual effects. Keep in mind that each of these forces from each point of mass has a slightly different vector. If the radius of distribution in the particles of an object is small with respect to the distance between the two objects, then the angle of the forces plays a more important role on the perceived force on the object. As long as the mass is distributed evenly in a solid sphere or hollow shell, and the distance between the objects is significantly larger than the distribution of mass in each object, then the center of mass method can be used with relatively little error. If the objects are closer together, then the perceived force on the object appears to be reduced because some parts of the vectors cancel each other out. Imagine the center of mass pulling the other object in a direction we'll label 0 degrees. If the distribution is large then the top and bottom of the object may pull (with the same force) at an angle of say + or - 15 degrees. Then using vector adddition (i.e. taking geometry into account) you would determine that the force from these particles would appear less in the direction of total attraction. Therefor one would percieve greater force, but it is really a matter of direction of the vectors and cancellation.
So the gravitational force emitted from the total object is solely dependent on it's mass, but the vectors of these forces produce a diffeent net effect on the other object dependent on the angle between the forces (which is determined by the size of distribution of both objects and the distance between the objects.
So the gravitational force emitted from the total object is solely dependent on it's mass, but the vectors of these forces produce a diffeent net effect on the other object dependent on the angle between the forces (which is determined by the size of distribution of both objects and the distance between the objects.
O.K... I get that - not a problem...
As to my description of the cause of gravity, though - I don't think Badaboom, that you quite 'get' it...
Every 'object' that mass consists of, (at every level), will be moving... Things do not move for no reason.. There must be a supply of energy to them in order to 'let' them move... That is what I think gravity is... And, yes there will be a by-product - (probably more than one) - because of that... And it's entirely probable that at least one of these by-products will be too efficient for us to detect at this time...
Like I said, it will be part of an Energy Transfer CYCLE... Which means that the total amount of energy going IN, (due to gravity), must also equal the amount of energy going OUT..... (Though yes a lot of those discussions have involved multiple universe/dimension theories/wormholes and stuff like that etc...).
As to my description of the cause of gravity, though - I don't think Badaboom, that you quite 'get' it...
Every 'object' that mass consists of, (at every level), will be moving... Things do not move for no reason.. There must be a supply of energy to them in order to 'let' them move... That is what I think gravity is... And, yes there will be a by-product - (probably more than one) - because of that... And it's entirely probable that at least one of these by-products will be too efficient for us to detect at this time...
Like I said, it will be part of an Energy Transfer CYCLE... Which means that the total amount of energy going IN, (due to gravity), must also equal the amount of energy going OUT..... (Though yes a lot of those discussions have involved multiple universe/dimension theories/wormholes and stuff like that etc...).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter