100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does Gravity exist? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
this topic is too heavy for me  It's not heavy, it's just gravity.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
nogames39
on
Tue 03/17/09 12:07 AM
|
|
Sorry i over-simplified this... Just trying to create a 3-d visual to explain a supposed 6-d concept (somthing like that). A bend, or funnel, or whatever, in space and time is a bit difficult for myself to describe having not taken theoretical physics... It's ok, bud. I was just ranting against the very common explanation that explains nothing, not against anything you said. If you're interested in the subject, what do you think of this question: If we take for granted the way gravity is understood to exist today, how would an effect of superposition of gravitational forces manifest itself on a third body, which lies on the same line with 1st body, when a second body, crosses that line normally between the 1st and the 3rd (like during an eclipse)? Like this: 1st body-------------------2nd body-------------------3rd body .................................................| ................................................V .................................................| .................................................| (direction of movement of 2nd body) ................................................V 1) The effects of gravitation will manifest themselves according to a trigonometrical superposition. (like magnetic forces) 2) The effects of gravitation will manifest themselves according to a trigonometrical superposition, except at the moment of crossing. (like light rays that could attract). Which answer would you pick? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To answer the thread title.....yes.
How do I know this? Ask my butt and boobs...I'm sure they were a lot higher, once upon a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Check this out Jeanniebean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/greatatt.htm http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/07/mystery-of-the.html http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/990924a2.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matter attracts matter, this is really old news. I try the whole socratic method of asking questions, but it fails when no one even tries to answer them. Long story short gravity is a phenomena, it exists becuase we witness it, how it works is another story. The mechanics are well understood. Any theory that would try to displace GR would need to answer as many questions and more. The morale of the story . . . this website is very wrong, and will be a source of much entertainment for my creations of you tube videos in the future. I posted the information gleaned from this page for discussion of the information, not to judge the messenger. Just saying that it is wrong does not explain anything about the post above. Sure, we witness something that we call 'gravity.' It appears that matter 'attracts' matter. But why? Why do you think that matter attracts matter? (I don't think it does.) Do you know the answer to that question? Ive read no other theories that do that . . . . I feel compelled to mention that, however I do not feel compelled to spend any real time going over this, its . . . well to follow moms advice I will not say what it is. No offense. In other words, you tend to believe what you see. Seeing is believing? Is that it? You drop an apple from a tree and suddenly you know what gravity is? Matter attracts matter? Okeeee dokeee.  We have come a long way JB, its probably a good thing to spend more time with a science book then to read that website. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matter attracts matter, this is really old news. I try the whole socratic method of asking questions, but it fails when no one even tries to answer them. Long story short gravity is a phenomena, it exists becuase we witness it, how it works is another story. The mechanics are well understood. Any theory that would try to displace GR would need to answer as many questions and more. The morale of the story . . . this website is very wrong, and will be a source of much entertainment for my creations of you tube videos in the future. I posted the information gleaned from this page for discussion of the information, not to judge the messenger. Just saying that it is wrong does not explain anything about the post above. Sure, we witness something that we call 'gravity.' It appears that matter 'attracts' matter. But why? Why do you think that matter attracts matter? (I don't think it does.) Do you know the answer to that question? Ive read no other theories that do that . . . . I feel compelled to mention that, however I do not feel compelled to spend any real time going over this, its . . . well to follow moms advice I will not say what it is. No offense. In other words, you tend to believe what you see. Seeing is believing? Is that it? You drop an apple from a tree and suddenly you know what gravity is? Matter attracts matter? Okeeee dokeee. We have come a long way JB, its probably a good thing to spend more time with a science book then to read that website. If you know one that really knows how gravity works I will check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/17/09 03:40 PM
|
|
Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The standard formula for gravity is: Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2) where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force, and d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses. G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm2/gm2. That means that if you put two 1-gram objects 1 centimeter apart from one another, they will attract each other with the force of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne. A dyne is equal to about 0.001 gram weight, meaning that if you have a dyne of force available, it can lift 0.001 grams in Earth's gravitational field. So 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne is a miniscule force. When you deal with massive bodies like the Earth, however, which has a mass of 6E+24 kilograms (see this Question of the Day), it adds up to a rather powerful force. It is also interesting to think about the fact that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe in some small way! Einstein later came along and redefined gravity, so there are now two models -- Newtonian and Einsteinian. Einsteinian gravitational theory has features that allow it to predict the motion of light around very massive objects and several other interesting phenomena. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: The general theory of relativity addresses the problem of gravity and that of nonuniform, or accelerated, motion. In one of his famous thought-experiments, Einstein showed that it is not possible to distinguish between an inertial frame of reference in a gravitational field and an accelerated frame of reference. That is, an observer in a closed space capsule who found himself pressing down on his seat could not tell whether he and the capsule were at rest in a gravitational field, or whether he and the capsule were undergoing acceleration. From this principle of equivalence, Einstein moved to a geometric interpretation of gravitation. The presence of mass or concentrated energy causes a local curvature in the space-time continuum. This curvature is such that the inertial paths of bodies are no longer straight lines but some form of curved (orbital) path, and this acceleration is what is called gravitation. If certain assumptions and simplifications are made, Einstein's equations handle Newtonian gravity as a subset. The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory. Okay when they come up with something better than this let me know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it doesn't. It's all Intelligent Falling. Many are the places where His Noodly Appendage reaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore your conception of the cosmos is wrong. Besides, when Newton supposed a gravitational force to exist, he had to imagine the existence of an ether. He could not conceive of this force without there being a vehicle for it. And it is strange that, later, relativity denies the ether and yet approves of gravity. it admits what the discoverer of gravity himself could not admit. Einstein actually acknowledged that the metric or spacetime continium of gr does in fact take the place of Newtons idea of an absolute. So he knew about the weakness, and thought about how to represent points without a space or ether-like existence. This is when most people thought that he lost his way in old age and went senile. I almost think that gravity has to be put aside for the moment in sciences. Another, more adequate description will fall into place for it in the gr sense of gravitation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open vs closed strings describe the system pretty well... but you have to factor in the mulidimensional effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SojWeJtYSr0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well,last time I checked,Things weren't falling Up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open vs closed strings describe the system pretty well... but you have to factor in the mulidimensional effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SojWeJtYSr0 A beautiful idea without anything to sink one's teeth in, and a low iron rating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open vs closed strings describe the system pretty well... but you have to factor in the mulidimensional effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SojWeJtYSr0 A beautiful idea without anything to sink one's teeth in, and a low iron rating. Lisa is one of the few who has designed practical experiments to run at CERN to test string theory and multi-dimensional space. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If people are inclined to believe in multiple dimensions, why are they so resistant to the idea that a wormhole between worlds has been opened and creatures like aliens, and big foot has come through them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open vs closed strings describe the system pretty well... but you have to factor in the mulidimensional effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SojWeJtYSr0 A beautiful idea without anything to sink one's teeth in, and a low iron rating. Lisa is one of the few who has designed practical experiments to run at CERN to test string theory and multi-dimensional space. Nifty! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 11/04/13 09:02 AM
|
|
who wrote that crap? mercury, the smallest planet, does not have an atmosphere, nor does it have tremendous gravity... and Saturn..gravity would be zero because it has no atmosphere? ITS A GAS GIANT WITH ABOUT 7 TIMES the gravity of earth! this is just stupid... oh, and by the way, how many moons does Saturn have? the only way something can have a moon/satellite is by gravity...
from wiki: The moons of Saturn are numerous and diverse ranging from tiny moonlets less than 1 kilometer across to the enormous Titan which is larger than the planet Mercury. Saturn has 62 moons with confirmed orbits, 53 of which have names and only 13 of which have diameters larger than 50 kilometers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Semantics.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Whatever "holds" us on the earth is gravity--it is a name. You can call it suckavity--to argue over whether "it" exists is a moot point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Semantics. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Whatever "holds" us on the earth is gravity--it is a name. You can call it suckavity--to argue over whether "it" exists is a moot point.
|
|
|
|
|
