Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: gravity

  1. #1 gravity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Gravity is only indirectly related to mass. It has more to do with the effect of mass on space. Spacial displacement.
    Planets form and masses form despite space's efforts to neutralize them. (reach a homeostasis or a state that was more like pre-big-bang)They resist against an already ever-present "liquid" space.
    Pressure is more accurate. On the Atomic level the pressure or gravity is relatively insignificant, at least to any form of our ability to perceive.

    The revolutions of the planets are attracted to larger bodies because the larger bodies are drawing them into their own coagulations while the smaller bodies resist to maintain their own coagulative sovreignty


    hmmmm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: gravity 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzamora
    Gravity is only indirectly related to mass. It has more to do with the effect of mass on space. Spacial displacement.
    How does that account for the density of mass and the relative increase in gravity?


    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    (Q) wrote:
    How does that account for the density of mass and the relative increase in gravity?




    The more mass, the greater it's affect on space-time fabric around it, the more "pressure" exerted on the almost liquid-like fabric of space time, the greater the "force" of gravity. The density of the mass determines how focused this "pressure" is and the more focused the pressure, the greater the increase in the perceived "force" of gravity.

    Would that be a correct assumption, Alzamora?
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    The density of the mass determines how focused this "pressure" is and the more focused the pressure, the greater the increase in the perceived "force" of gravity.
    That makes no sense, please explain?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    (Q) is right as long as one couldn’t present a proof or at least an example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Thats true according to its corresponding model of space.

    A star only has so much gravity to begin with, but if it takes the path of turning into a neutron star, its gravitational density increases dramatically. The same total amount of gravity is there, only more dense than before.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Well, the greater the mass, the more gravity. because more material has come together which then displaces the "liquid" space. Liquid is a bad example but it best shows the displacement aspect.

    it is a different way of seeing space in that space is not bound by a human definition of time. I dont buy the Space Time aspect of relativity, i think this is why the GUT (grand unified theory ) doesnt exist yet. I think gravity isnt so much affecting Spacetime as much as it is displacing pre big bang material, call it what you will (dark matter).

    this all makes sense when considering my theory of direct repurcussionism:
    time doesnt define space. all that is happening is happening now regardless of one's placement in the universe and how long it would take light, or you for that matter, to get here or there.

    what do you make of that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'd make a lot more of it if there were some maths. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    math is easy,
    you can make math fit to anything.
    I just don't do math.
    give it to a math wiz, and see what elegance they come up with.
    The math can sometimes limit the real face of reality, which is really quite simple. All things repeat in scale in each direction, macro micro. its the details that are different.

    Alzamora
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Hi Cold Fusion,
    wow! you are right about the star collapsing thing. same gravity different density. I really think this spacial displacement theory might actually have some bearings here. If you think of it, Big Bang is some force that is spurred into a mass of "something/nothing/darkmatter" everything after that is the universe trying to equalize back to a state that is closest to its pre big bang state.
    so all this stuff that is in space is an intrusion into the "something/nothing/darkmatter"

    king of like a dust bag being popped underwater with out gravity to make the particles go any particular direction. imagine that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    for example . look what crude oil does in the ocean, it coagulates into crusty nasty little tar balls.

    oil and water don't mix.

    Dark matter and matter don't mix.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    our atmosphere insulates us from interacting with dark matter. look what happens when a human goes out too far into space. they dont mix well.

    dark matter that is detected is just vast expanses of space that does not have any star, planetary or galactic presence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzamora
    our atmosphere insulates us from interacting with dark matter. look what happens when a human goes out too far into space. they dont mix well.

    dark matter that is detected is just vast expanses of space that does not have any star, planetary or galactic presence
    Well, here is another contributer, who has no idea, what he is talking about. But arrogant enough to say "I don't do math." Really funny. No math, no science. As simple as that.

    Do you know, what dark matter is and why it was invented? Have you any idea about the observations and their conclusions to the reality of dark matter? Well, here it is: "Dark Matter" is just an expression for something we don't understand. The rotation curves of galaxies seem to show that they contain more mass than we see. This "hidden" mass is called "Dark Matter", and it was the first phenomenon that led to its definition. There you see that your statement is totally wrong. Nobody actually knows, what it is or if it actually exists. The problem with it is that it obviously only interacts with normal matter via gravity. So, how can our atmosphere shield us from gravity? But if it exists, there must be lots of it in and around every galaxy and galaxy cluster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzamora
    Well, the greater the mass, the more gravity. because more material has come together which then displaces the "liquid" space. Liquid is a bad example but it best shows the displacement aspect.
    Again, you continue to spout this nonsense without addressing the main issue of volume and density.

    it is a different way of seeing space in that space is not bound by a human definition of time. I dont buy the Space Time aspect of relativity
    You have no concept of Relativity - here is the proof of that:

    "I just don't do math."

    Hence, you have no clue as to what theories are currently accepted and why, and you are unable to refute them.

    i think this is why the GUT (grand unified theory ) doesnt exist yet. I think gravity isnt so much affecting Spacetime as much as it is displacing pre big bang material, call it what you will (dark matter).
    A fantasy on your part, based on some loose terms tossed together.

    this all makes sense when considering my theory of direct repurcussionism:
    time doesnt define space. all that is happening is happening now regardless of one's placement in the universe and how long it would take light, or you for that matter, to get here or there.

    what do you make of that?
    Gibberish discharge.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    well well well,
    it seems we have a couple of defensive forum goers out there. Im just putting forth ideas that stem from observation of our world, JUST as Einstein did , and Im not trying to make a Bomb so the practical uses of math for my postulations do not interest me or apply to what I am talking about. Einstein sought the help of a Math expert to define a number of "theories" that weren't math based initially.
    Creativity and imagination come before math. Math describes in empirical terms what that process is. Look for it and you'll find it.

    VOLUME and DENSITY, they are exactly as they are, I dont know why i would need to address them.

    I do understand RELATIVITY, I just don't agree with all of it. Or i would have to add to it to make it more complete.

    DARK MATTER, it is said has a frequency that is akin to the pre big bang frequencies. It is then assumed that what we consider dark matter, or the big unknown yet present stuff in space is what may have been here prior to the interruption of the Big Bang. AND TO THINK THAT DARK MAATTER WAS "INVENTED" IS RIDICULOUS. It was discovered to address the phenomenon of the stuff that is and has been there.

    keep you FANTASIES to yourself.

    GRAVITY ATMOSPHERE SHIELD?. What?? I dindt say out atmosphere shields us from gravity. Our atmosphere defines ourt gravity , just as the moon's defines its own gravity, there is less atmosphere therefor less gravity. Im not making stuff up here. It interacts with normal gravity via matter because it is what defines gravity. The galaxies are in essence foreigners, they tend to clump together not because of gravity, but because they are of similar materials in a dissimilar environment. (DARK MATTER)

    Saturn's mass is about 5.69 x 1026 kg. Although this is 95 times the mass of the Earth, the gravity on Saturn is only 1.08 times the gravity on Earth. This is because Saturn is such a large planet (and the gravitational force a planet exerts upon an object at the planet's surface is proportional to its mass and to the inverse of its radius squared).

    A 100 pound person would only weigh 108 pounds on Saturn.


    If we too were 318 times our own mass,(as is proportionate to jupiter) we would actually weigh less on Jupiter. Our atmosphere gives our gravity more clout. More band for the buck if you will. So proportionately bigger doesn't mean proportionately more gravity. It is relative to atmosphere.

    think about that.

    And don't be jerks!

    Alzamora[/b][/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Q


    cool animation

    by the way.


    Alzamora
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzamora
    Im just putting forth ideas that stem from observation of our world, JUST as Einstein did
    Comparing yourself with Einstein?

    the practical uses of math for my postulations do not interest me or apply to what I am talking about.
    Then, they are rather useless as postulations.

    Einstein sought the help of a Math expert to define a number of "theories" that weren't math based initially.
    Comparing again? tsk tsk

    Creativity and imagination come before math. Math describes in empirical terms what that process is. Look for it and you'll find it.
    Creativity and imagination don't come before understanding, which you've yet to grasp.

    VOLUME and DENSITY, they are exactly as they are, I dont know why i would need to address them.
    You are not taking them into consideration with your assertions and you wind up with a contradiction on your hands.

    I do understand RELATIVITY, I just don't agree with all of it. Or i would have to add to it to make it more complete.
    Fine. Tell us exactly what it is you don't agree with or would find completion?

    Our atmosphere defines ourt gravity , just as the moon's defines its own gravity, there is less atmosphere therefor less gravity
    But, with the moon there is NO atmosphere, hence NO gravity?

    Im not making stuff up here.
    You could have fooled us. But, you didn't.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Q




    simply put,
    Time is overemphasized. Thats when I say relativity has limitations in knowing the universe.
    Gravity is just a fun topic to think about. Im not trying to compare myself to anyone, im just thinking out loud on a science forum and, well, I appreciate your responses but you are a little mean.
    But thats ok.

    In the meantime, you keep on believing things are as others say, stop looking around, stop being creative, and so on.

    One other thing. Imagine a dense body of matter/liquid/space. introduce a dissimilar substance which the original matter/liquid/space has to then share its space with it ......

    i dont know never mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzamora
    Q

    simply put,
    Time is overemphasized. Thats when I say relativity has limitations in knowing the universe.
    I think it is you who is the one with limitations.

    Gravity is just a fun topic to think about. Im not trying to compare myself to anyone, im just thinking out loud on a science forum and, well, I appreciate your responses but you are a little mean.
    But thats ok.
    Sorry, I didn't know you're posting your imaginative assertions. One would suspect you simply didn't know what you're talking about.

    In the meantime, you keep on believing things are as others say, stop looking around, stop being creative, and so on.
    No, I don't just believe what others say, that appears to be what you're doing, in a parroting form.

    One other thing. Imagine a dense body of matter/liquid/space.
    I'm imagining the contents of your cranium.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10
    Q



    nevermind
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •