Chat Room
 

Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #1 
The following is a question that was posed elsewhere. My answer was as follows it:

Quote:
Now carry the scenario to the exact center of the perfect sphere. At that point, the observer now has 1 radii of mass in all directions. Gravitational fields should cancel and there should be "zero" gravity.
Obviously this is not what we see in real space time.
What am I missing here? 

It may not be what you are missing, but what we all are missing; Clear pieces of a puzzle that didn't originate on this planet. Up till 2006, I held to the mass attraction theory, but the theory of loops of gravity, or at least at short range, could be seen to contradict Occam's Razor and, in doing so, the conservation of energy. Gravitons are thought to be a non-massive particle with weak force, but infinite range (Lederman-Schramm at FermiLab). That would, as the inverse of infinitesimality, require infinity to balance. To originate from the center of a mass requires more energy than to simply be bombarded by gravitational force. For one of our favorite examples, Einstein vascilated on this till he died, meaning a repuslsive force and it is understandable because it is difficult to solve the conflict with gravitational loops and classic physics. The problem exists in the need for a balance. With one direction in a mean free path and the other omitted, there is no conflict. Such a flow would have to be inbound. With an inbound force, energy is conserved and your query is solved.

__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. :P Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #2 

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage)

____________________________________________________________

This is something that many scientists have struggled with and revisited over theri scientific careers. Einstein also wrestled with "the aether" and dismissed it, but it hasn't stopped there. We should never ignore that Newton attributed the force of gravity as being imparted by God or the Holy Spirit.

 

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm

Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton’s Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton’s young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it’s easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton’s law.
Since the force of gravity depends strictly on the mass of an object (not on its apparent size), Fatio postulated that material objects are almost entirely transparent to the gravific corpuscles. At the time, this was a radical suggestion, but Fatio argued for its plausibility by noting that corpuscles of light can pass through solid glass, even though glass is as seemingly dense and impermeable as other solids. Fatio also noted that the lack of appreciable drag on moving objects could be explained by postulating a sufficiently high speed for the corpuscles. He also explained that the gravific corpuscles must be slowed by their interactions with ordinary matter in order to transfer the necessary momentum. Fatio continued to refine and promote his theory throughout the rest of his life, even after enlisting with the exiled Camisards, a insurrectionist sect of Huguenots from the south of France.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm

It’s an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage “explanation” of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton’s ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical (material) cause. It’s true that he explicitly denied (in a famous letter to Bentley) the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected (in a letter to Leibniz) the notion that space is filled with some material substance (a la Descartes) that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause. Of course, he gave consideration to various possible material mechanisms, and even included some Queries in the latter editions of Opticks, speculating on the possibility of an ether that is least dense near matter, and whose density increases the further we recede from matter. This could be interpreted as a somewhat obscure reference to Fatio’s theory, since the flux of gravific corpuscles is reduced in the vicinity of matter, due to the shadowing effect. And yet David Gregory reported that, behind Fatio’s back, Newton laughed at his method of explaining gravity, and Newton scrupulously avoided mentioning any such explanations in his cherished Principia – aside from making it clear that his conception of gravity did not assume any particular mechanism, nor even whether gravity was due to an inherent pull between matter or was caused by some kind of impulsion. Indeed Fatio was unhappy that Newton never publicly acknowledged, let alone endorsed, his theory. He wrote to Conduitt in 1730

"I have often wondered how the second and third Edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles do touch so lightly upon this matter. For if there be a mechanical cause of gravity – as it is most probable – there is also a demonstration that there can be no cause of it than that which I give, and Dr. I. knew it very well."

Apparently Fatio didn’t appreciate how anathema his “explanation of gravity” was to Newton’s fundamental doctrine, which was to eschew occult (i.e., hidden) causes for manifest phenomena. Even setting outside the outlandishness of the explanation, Newton was never able to extract from Fatio’s idea any testable consequence that could support it, so the idea remained an occult mechanism which, according to Newton, is not the proper purview of science.

The way this all settles in states that Newton's concept of a process neutral to religion, favors a fairy tale as gravity's cause rather than a sound scientific one. If we delve further into the idea that gravity is mechanical, rather than "Holy Spirit," we can find mistakes, nonetheless, a scientific principle that might be refined and may be the correct concept.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Perhaps black holes do not jive with loops of force that reach a mighty hand upward to pull us down by the seat of our pants, because even singularities are subject to Occam's Razor, thus the path of least resistance. If not, then the razor is feable at best, but crippled at worst.

What I find fascinating at times, is that a concept such as mechanical gravity arises when examining issues such as propulsion. I first encountered it when looking at the "glue" holding stars together. At the moment of fusion, gravitational force reverses because it is is overwhelmed by the atomic forces designed to do exactly that at millions of degrees C., unless, perhaps, a graviton is collectively a force stronger than electromagnetism. We know that is not true.

On the other hand, a particle with inifnite range, such as the graviton, especially as an inbound stream, would be unaffected by such high heat and the force it generates because the infinite range, requiring the potentially inifite velocity, is a jugernaut compared to the force of a single boson, or even a domino-train-like string of bosons, because the boson is finite opposed to the collective string of gravitons, approaching infinite velocity. One needs to remember that a star, even though vast compared to us or a single atomic particle, is but a speck compared to the force available to an infinite universe, both material and potentially material.


__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. :P Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #3 
An interesting point. I suppose Cavendish did his experiment with solid, round balls. But what if instead, he'd used hollow balls. Or not balls at all, but lumps of matter in different shapes. Such as cubes, pyramids, or flat metal plates. Would use of non-spherical shapes like these, have made a difference to the result of his experiment - in fact stopped it working at all?

The experiment worked using simple solid spheres. Because a sphere has an obvious centre. Which draws all gravity-streams in towards it. But in a non-sphere, such as a thin flat plate, how do the gravity streams "know" where the centre is?

------------------ the above is a quote from another poster on another forum -------------------


I don't believe it has to know anymore than a stream of water knows where the center of a rock is. As a thought experiment, imagine we suspend a window screen inside a gimbal, then suspend the gimbal from a pulley system with a counterweight, far enough up where we can either allow the mist setting stream from a garden hose to either be sprayed through from beneath or outside and above our screen. Not only would there be a time lag when sprayed from beneath and through the screen, due to restoration force as the water reaches an effective level then descends, the downbound quantity of water will be less and upward force will be exerted because the soild wires of the mesh will encounter some water collisions. The mist falling from above will also have half the contact, but in half the time, thus over the same period, two downward impulses versus one up cancelled by one down.

From the horizontal acceleration aspect, we would be subject either direction from an imbalance of potential energy taking the easiest path which is to pinch the lesser volume, which adds to the outside volume as the two objects converge. Like with an object in space, shape is meaningless. In a stronger stream, where the banks constrain the flow, two partially hollow bodies, tethered one to each bank, would equally divide the flow, naturally it depends on the initial position of the partially floating objects.

Hopefully that's written well enough to convey the logic of the experiment.


__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. :P Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #4 

View Postelijah, on 19 April 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

It appears to in the workings of the Cavendish balance.

Newton recognizes its existence, but goes on to say you do not need to be concerned with it in most equations because its vectors balance out. It would appear that the acceleration of horizontal gravity continually seeks an equilibrium state.

If it exists should it not be considered in the geodesists' flattening equation?


It depends on the effective direction of gravity.

If gravity is an attractive force, yes, because quantum gravitational loops would include length as well as height and possibly depth. If gravity is is an inbound, impacting force, no, because the Cavendish experiment would demonstrate attraction of the spheres from an imbalance of internal streams, streams between the spheres and streams outside the spheres.

As of the moment, nobody really knows.


____________________________________________________________
It depends on the effective direction of gravity.

If gravity is an attractive force, yes, because quantum gravitational loops would include length as well as height and possibly depth. If gravity is is an inbound, impacting force, no, because the Cavendish experiment would demonstrate attraction of the spheres from an imbalance of internal streams, streams between the spheres and streams outside the spheres.

As of the moment, nobody really knows.


An interesting point. I suppose Cavendish did his experiment with solid, round balls. But what if instead, he'd used hollow balls. Or not balls at all, but lumps of matter in different shapes. Such as cubes, pyramids, or flat metal plates. Would use of non-spherical shapes like these, have made a difference to the result of his experiment - in fact stopped it working at all?

The experiment worked using simple solid spheres. Because a sphere has an obvious centre. Which draws all gravity-streams in towards it. But in a non-sphere, such as a thin flat plate, how do the gravity streams "know" where the centre is?


__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. :P Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Buying JOOTBOX some cyberspace... :)
Grants for Various Levels or Projects