PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,602
- 781
- 136
Weight is what we feel when an opposing force (like my chair) prevents me from yielding to the acceleration gravity (working on the masses of me and the Earth) would otherwise cause. So it may be just as accurate to attribute your weight to the opposing force rather than to gravity. And gravity is a force (at least in Newtonian physics).
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Gravitational waves, if they exist, would have a ridiculously small wavelength because gravity is a weak force (relatively speaking).
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
If an object is at the center of 2 mass objects that have = mass that are 180 degrees apart. The gravatalional field will cause that object to be 100% static. . This should ans 2 also. Gravataional fields are forces produce by mass. and the object would be in contact with the field
But I only finished 12 grade. LOL.
Gravity isn't a constant . The size of the field is dependent upun the mass of the object the produces it. Take a black hole for instanstance. Light can't escape its power.
Better yet take a walk on the moon and jump. The strength of the field is completely 100% related to mass creating it.
This is one thing that always bother me about the big bang theory. If all the mass of the universe was in one place I just don't see how it could blow out . We have a pretty good idea of what black holes are. Its been said nothing can escape it. Yet scientist want us to believe all the mass of the universe was in one place yet some how some way mass escaped from it. Now either nothing can escape or it can . It can't be both.
If you were to fall from space onto the moon you would fall at a slower speed than if you were falling from space onto Saturn. So gravational fields are not a constant . It is the mass of an object that sets the strength of the field.
Now if there is more than 1 universe this changes things abit. Actually alot. In the whole of this universe. Dark matter is the most intriguing thing to me. its everywhere not one fabric of space is empty. Dark matter exist everywhere and infact its total weight is greater the all the mass of the universe. I like to think of dark matter as being GOD.
The really strange thing about darkmatter is the mass has no effect upon it.
Now if you meant that gravitional field being constant. That there is an absolute speed that can be attained from a object caught in its field I might agree . and I am assuming scientist would put that absolute speed at 186,000 miles per second . But I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Its said nothing can attain lot speed. But I really doubt that.
If scientist want us to except that you can fold space and time. Than I think maybe they should take another look at light speed as being an absolute limit. Because when folding space time. You are in fact shortening the distance between 2 objects. in theory only . I believe and its only a belief that when an object exceeds 186,000 miles per second. The moment light speed is passed you are in fact folding time and space.
But I only finished 12 grade. LOL.
Gravity isn't a constant . The size of the field is dependent upun the mass of the object the produces it. Take a black hole for instanstance. Light can't escape its power.
Better yet take a walk on the moon and jump. The strength of the field is completely 100% related to mass creating it.
This is one thing that always bother me about the big bang theory. If all the mass of the universe was in one place I just don't see how it could blow out . We have a pretty good idea of what black holes are. Its been said nothing can escape it. Yet scientist want us to believe all the mass of the universe was in one place yet some how some way mass escaped from it. Now either nothing can escape or it can . It can't be both.
If you were to fall from space onto the moon you would fall at a slower speed than if you were falling from space onto Saturn. So gravational fields are not a constant . It is the mass of an object that sets the strength of the field.
Now if there is more than 1 universe this changes things abit. Actually alot. In the whole of this universe. Dark matter is the most intriguing thing to me. its everywhere not one fabric of space is empty. Dark matter exist everywhere and infact its total weight is greater the all the mass of the universe. I like to think of dark matter as being GOD.
The really strange thing about darkmatter is the mass has no effect upon it.
Now if you meant that gravitional field being constant. That there is an absolute speed that can be attained from a object caught in its field I might agree . and I am assuming scientist would put that absolute speed at 186,000 miles per second . But I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Its said nothing can attain lot speed. But I really doubt that.
If scientist want us to except that you can fold space and time. Than I think maybe they should take another look at light speed as being an absolute limit. Because when folding space time. You are in fact shortening the distance between 2 objects. in theory only . I believe and its only a belief that when an object exceeds 186,000 miles per second. The moment light speed is passed you are in fact folding time and space.
Mo0o
Lifer
- Jul 31, 2001
- 24,227
- 3
- 76
Wha are you talking about.
Question #1 isn't asking where the sum of gravitational forces is zero. it's asking where you dont experience any kind of gravitational force, which would be a place infinitely far from any other object.
And dark matter is just the remainder of the mass from what we can see of the universe. If the total universe is the sum of EVERYTHING, how can dark matter exceed that. scientist would just add to the theoritical mass of the universe. and what do you mean "darkmatter is the mass has no effect upon it." It exhibits gravitational force on objects, just not EM force
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
There are two obvious answers that I can think of:
1. Reject this Secular Humanist "science" and "physics" claptrap and embrace the theory of Intelligent Falling. Pray really hard enough and embrace the faith and love that is our Lord Jesus Christ, and He may choose to grant you the ability to uplift yourself from the bonds of the Earth and transcend the typical effects seen from Intelligent Falling.
2. Exit the current universe and enter a separate universe where different physical laws govern the behavior of time, space, matter, and energy. Watch out for unexpected effects, such as, say, not being able to exist in a solid form...
1. Reject this Secular Humanist "science" and "physics" claptrap and embrace the theory of Intelligent Falling. Pray really hard enough and embrace the faith and love that is our Lord Jesus Christ, and He may choose to grant you the ability to uplift yourself from the bonds of the Earth and transcend the typical effects seen from Intelligent Falling.
2. Exit the current universe and enter a separate universe where different physical laws govern the behavior of time, space, matter, and energy. Watch out for unexpected effects, such as, say, not being able to exist in a solid form...
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Than the ans would be noware. If 2 equal fields have an object ats its center THey cancel each other out so there would be zero field effect.
As far as black matter goes . Link please.
Here is my theory on dark matter and its as good as anyone elses. Darkmatter is moving at faster than light speed . So it exist outside of time space. I believe dark matter is omnipresent.
Lets say there is a black hole and a light ray is heading for it. At a speed of 186.000 miles per second . Once that light ray is caught in the gravational pull of the black hole . Will it's speed increase?????.
As far as black matter goes . Link please.
Here is my theory on dark matter and its as good as anyone elses. Darkmatter is moving at faster than light speed . So it exist outside of time space. I believe dark matter is omnipresent.
Lets say there is a black hole and a light ray is heading for it. At a speed of 186.000 miles per second . Once that light ray is caught in the gravational pull of the black hole . Will it's speed increase?????.
If you say so; I've been grading for a few years, and there's usually a student or two every semester that will give the weirdest answers even if they're told outright to try something else. But I only grade the intro gen ed courses, and it sounds like you're probably in something a little more advanced (or at least a little more high brow)
A good example of how electromagnetism also acts at a distance would be 2 magnets; they don't need to be touching for the magnets to feel a mutually attractive or repulsive force. Likewise, two electrons will repel each other without ever coming into contact. A stationary electron has an electric field associated with it, and a second electron will feel a force from that field.
Now you're just arguing semantics, and there we still disagree. Gravity is not a constant. The gravitational coefficient is a constant. In all of my classical mechanics and GR courses, gravity is what you described as the "gravitational force."
What pulls objects toward the center of the Earth? The most common answer you'll here is one word - "Gravity." Only forces can "pull" or "push" and therefore the word "gravity" specifically describes the force of gravity, not its coefficient (either g or G).
Again, I think this is just semantics at this point. I've never heard g or G described as "gravity."
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Imagine what a 4-dimensional cube looks like. That'll probably help. Good luck.
The closest you'll probably get is a tesseract, which Carl Sagan described as a "shadow" of a 4-dimensional cube, just as a square is a "shadow" of a 3-dimensional cube.
If you only existed in two dimensions, and new of a square. Could you conceive of the direction in which that "extra" dimension existed?
The analogy you may have seen before is the "rubber sheet," wherein space is reduced to two dimensions, leaving time as the third - objects with mass curve the sheet downward. Something passing by will "fall" toward the object with mass. If it lacks sufficient velocity, it will become trapped by the gravity well, and either enter orbit, or collide.
Orbiting, as I understand it: You're falling toward the planet, but you're also moving forward. As you move forward, the ground, by nature of the spherical shape of the planet, is moving away from you. In that reference frame, you're in free-fall, falling toward a surface which is constantly curving away from you, yet because of your constant falling, you are able to remain equidistant from it.
I'm imagining the shit out of that cube. You don't even know...
But maybe I was confused, but I thought the "rubber sheet" was space along one axis and time along the other, with mass distorting it in some mystery dimension. But what you're saying is the sheet is space and mass distorts space in the "direction" of time?
A neat way to think of this is to pretend that space is like a giant flat sheet (ie hold a sheet at its four corners above the ground so that it is flat). Now place a baseball in the middle of the sheet. This causes the originally flat sheet to become curved. Take a marble and place it somewhere on the sheet and it will fall toward the baseball. Give the marble some velocity around the baseball and it will have an "orbit" (not necessarily elliptical, the kinetic energy given to the marble will determine its orbit).
That should give a vague idea of what's going on.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Excuse me fella . Dark matter is only a hypothetical based on the fact that the mass of the universe is way to light. That is all physicists could come up with . Dark matter has never been seen or proven to exist. As for gravataional effects. Dark matter effects other objects in the universe in other words It has its own gravational field . But other objects dont seem to have an effect on it. If dark matter is as I said. Omnipresent and Dark matter has effects that can be seen between galaxies. The reason other matter has zero effect on dark matter is rather straight forward and simple . Dark matter is moving at faster than light speed so gravational forces have no effect on . This faster than light speed is what makes it omnipresent. WE won't even talk about Dark energy . I don't want to hurt your head.
Physicists got their panties in a bind because the mass weight of the universe is less than 1/2 of what it should be.
They will never get a trace of it every because its as I said . Dark matter is omnipresent and it exist outside of time space.
Its the same as gravitational force." Bending time and space its only a hypothetical
They proved God exist but they won't except their findings.
Physicists got their panties in a bind because the mass weight of the universe is less than 1/2 of what it should be.
They will never get a trace of it every because its as I said . Dark matter is omnipresent and it exist outside of time space.
Its the same as gravitational force." Bending time and space its only a hypothetical
They proved God exist but they won't except their findings.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
That is actually a fantastic find.
Im sure more will be heard about this from the scientific community.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
As I understand it, "Dark matter" refers to, "We don't know what it is." It's something that should be out there, but we have no idea what's missing, or where it is.
I've heard a fair amount about MOND, which seems to be able to explain away the need for dark matter.
Scientific American had an article awhile ago about dark matter, and how it was used to explain some halo-type structure around galaxies. But there was a little section of the article which said that MOND theory could explain this behavior without the need for dark matter. It wasn't given much attention though; the main focus is always on dark matter.
I wonder if any these simulations or calculations they do which show missing mass take into account relativistic effects - mass increases due to the speeds of stars as they move, or mass effects due to the motion of the galaxies themselves. Granted a lot of this motion isn't really too high compared to C, but when you're talking about a star, it should be a decent amount of mass. Then there's the mass of the electromagnetic radiation in the Universe. It's been my thinking that light does have mass, but the problem would be in measuring it directly. Take 1kg, measure its gravitational attraction - it's going to be really minimal. Now convert that 1kg of mass into energy. It's an insane amount of it. e = mc^2, so if I've got units right, for converting to joules, c=299 792 458 m / s, so you'd get 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules. (I think that's right, the units check out.) It's a lot of energy. This site lists it as being equal to 21.481 megatons of TNT; it also confirms my answer. So try measuring the mass of 90 million gigajoules of energy without vaporizing yourself, your measuring equipment, and a large city.
In any case, the energy is immense from a certain amount of mass, but that energy should still have the same gravitational attraction as the original 1kg mass. If you're talking about a star, radiating immense amounts of energy for billions of years. That's going to spew out a lot of mass into the surrounding space. This sea of EM radiation, present throughout the Universe, would add a little bit of mass to every square meter of it.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Einstein thought that light had mass, so is my thinking accurate? - A law of conservation of mass would still apply when matter is converted into energy.
I've heard a fair amount about MOND, which seems to be able to explain away the need for dark matter.
Scientific American had an article awhile ago about dark matter, and how it was used to explain some halo-type structure around galaxies. But there was a little section of the article which said that MOND theory could explain this behavior without the need for dark matter. It wasn't given much attention though; the main focus is always on dark matter.
I wonder if any these simulations or calculations they do which show missing mass take into account relativistic effects - mass increases due to the speeds of stars as they move, or mass effects due to the motion of the galaxies themselves. Granted a lot of this motion isn't really too high compared to C, but when you're talking about a star, it should be a decent amount of mass. Then there's the mass of the electromagnetic radiation in the Universe. It's been my thinking that light does have mass, but the problem would be in measuring it directly. Take 1kg, measure its gravitational attraction - it's going to be really minimal. Now convert that 1kg of mass into energy. It's an insane amount of it. e = mc^2, so if I've got units right, for converting to joules, c=299 792 458 m / s, so you'd get 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules. (I think that's right, the units check out.) It's a lot of energy. This site lists it as being equal to 21.481 megatons of TNT; it also confirms my answer. So try measuring the mass of 90 million gigajoules of energy without vaporizing yourself, your measuring equipment, and a large city.
In any case, the energy is immense from a certain amount of mass, but that energy should still have the same gravitational attraction as the original 1kg mass. If you're talking about a star, radiating immense amounts of energy for billions of years. That's going to spew out a lot of mass into the surrounding space. This sea of EM radiation, present throughout the Universe, would add a little bit of mass to every square meter of it.I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Einstein thought that light had mass, so is my thinking accurate? - A law of conservation of mass would still apply when matter is converted into energy.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Was watching the history channels, the universe last night.
They had the episode on about dark matter and dark energy.
Dark energy is still unproven.
Poor guy spends all day underground waiting for a sensor to detect dark energy that may not even exist. Two years now and nothing. Fun job ?
Answers sure to provoke discussion.
1. if your in tachyon field.
2. dark energy ?
LOL
Searching for dark energy and clicking the link on the nasa site brought up a
404 page not found , how appropriate
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Actually this same type of effect was observered by Fritz Zwicky in 1937. Not exactly the same. This observation has not changed the fact that this is still a hypothetical and not yet a theory.
It is interesting tho that Darkmatter was not slowed down and the fact that it behaves in away unknown in the observed universe of other matter.
Its interesting but nothing has changed. But the fact that matter in the form we understand hasn't any effect on it . Basicly just the way I said it was. After you pass light speed . nothing can effect inertia Until science gets a grip on omnipresence they well never fully understand dark matter.
But what I am saying does support the big bang theory. Nothing can escape a black hole . Unless its moving faster than light speed. Considering Dark matter is the Bulk of the matter in the known universe. Dark matter may have acted upon the normal matter in the universe that up till the big bang was held it in static position by dark matter.If dark matter is as I say omnipresent it was everywere in the universe before the big bang . Muck like the OP orginal question. It took a while to get from there to here but it was fun.
Dark matter = the earth Normal matter = an object at the center of the earth. Than we have the big bang. As many have stated your question 1 is kind of tricky and possiable worded wrong . Static is the best term that can be used. Maybe better terms but my knowledge have words is pretty limited.
It is possiable the ans. to question 1 would be . an object moving at speeds in excess of light speed . Would not be effected by gravatational fields. Because it would be folding time and space. But dark matter would still have effects upon said object. But are they the same fields as we understand them . This would be the greater question.
God=dark matter
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
You're still producing your own gravitational field, and you're stuck at the bottom of a gravity well. I'd say you're still not really exempt from gravity.
You need bigger pages.
(I'm set to display 100 threads per page.
In the old days, that'd show only very recent stuff, but now it's died down, and the oldest visible threads on page 1 are a full day old.)Because we're not Jedi... it[force] is all around us but you must master the ways of the force if we're to be in contact.
Guarantee you'll get more points than the extra credit is worth.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
1. Nowhere. If you invented a universe where all of the mass besides you was evenly distributed around you, the net force acting on you would be zero, but you'd still be in a potential well and would experience time dilation. I think that's about as close as you could get short of creating a universe with only you in it.
2. I don't even know what this is supposed to be asking.
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: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter