Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Gravity

  1. #1 Gravity 
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Please see image here: http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5...gravityhc5.jpg

    How many boxes are required for the gravitational phenomenon to occur.

    In other words, if I continued adding more and more boxes (not touching each other) when will they start connecting together because of their own gravity?
    EDIT: assume this is occuring initially in a zero gravity vacuum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    As soon as you add some mass, it is no longer a zero gravity vacuum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Gravity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    Please see image here: http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5...gravityhc5.jpg

    How many boxes are required for the gravitational phenomenon to occur.

    In other words, if I continued adding more and more boxes (not touching each other) when will they start connecting together because of their own gravity?
    Assume this is occuring in a zero gravity vacuum.
    If this was occurring in a vacuum in space with no gravity or free falling. The type of material and ambient radiation present would probably determine if the boxes moved together or apart.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    As soon as you add some mass, it is no longer a zero gravity vacuum.
    oh sorry about my wording. It is initially zero gravity. You add the boxes afterward.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If this was occurring in a vacuum in space with no gravity or free falling. The type of material and ambient radiation present would probably determine if the boxes moved together or apart.
    Why would it move apart?



    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    As soon as you add some mass, it is no longer a zero gravity vacuum.
    oh sorry about my wording. It is initially zero gravity. You add the boxes afterward.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If this was occurring in a vacuum in space with no gravity or free falling. The type of material and ambient radiation present would probably determine if the boxes moved together or apart.
    Why would it move apart?



    .
    If not properly shielded in space, an electromagnetic field could be produced. The same field that plays havoc with the atomic clock.

    Depending upon the material the block is made of, it could attract or repel.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    oh sorry about my wording. It is initially zero gravity. You add the boxes afterward.
    Any two masses will attract one another by their gravitational fields in proportion to their masses and the universal gravitation constant G and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between. Lemme try that tex thingie

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Alc
    Alc is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21
    well, gravity from every object in space, including ourselves adds to vast gravitational feild, when near a celestial body or any body, the feild appears uniform, which means the gravity is at its strongest, the further you travel from an object, the feild becomes radial by comparrison (even though the gravity is initally fro the same point of an object a radial feild can appear uniform in any circumstance but never is).

    As Harold14370 just mentioned. Inverse square law of gravity is basically, if you double the distance between two bodies, the gravity will quater in strength.

    For the boxes to move together it would have to be 0 gravity before the boxes are added, then i don't see why they wouldnt, it would be very slow, assuming the boxes are quite lightweight.

    In the same way anything in 0 gravity can orbit something equal in size or larger than itself, im not too sure if a larger object can be pulled into orbit of something already in a fixed orbit? say jupiter orbiting earth... im not sure about that. anyone?

    the boxes themselves each produce equal gravity, and assuming its a vast network of boxes they would all move towards the center of the overall gravitational feild produced, But, assuming its an infinite network of boxes each EXACTLY the same distance from each other, i beleive theyd al be pulled equally in each direction... and at the other extreme, im not sure if random groups of boxes would start to form.

    I didnt quite answer your question i know... but im guessing the answer in 0 gravity is 2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Gravity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    I've been working on this crude project for the past 2 weeks or so. It demonstrates how massive objects in space affect one another. It does not include collision detection but rather gravity deflection.

    It was written as a java applet. It has a crude interface without error checking, so be forewarned. You can modify the size of the "debris field" with the 2 text fields towards the top (x,y respectively). You may want to turn off "Draw Tails" by clicking on that checkbox. The simulation begins to get slow once you reach the 1000 satellite count point. One last thing is that you can add "Planetoid" sized objects by clicking and dragging the cursor anywhere on the window. This is somewhat gimped by the fact that I wanted to make it feasible to insert a Planetoid by single clicking.... I'm rusty at java and haven't figured that out yet.

    The Visible area is around 1600x1024 +/- a few....so set your screen size appropriately.

    Warning: you shouldn't keep it running for a long time as it is prone to lockup after 10-20 mins of continuous iterations. If this happens then just halt the app using the Task Manager. BE SURE TO SAVE YOUR WORK IN PROGRESS BEFORE USING THIS APPLET.

    Let me know if it works for you...you may need to install the lastest Java Client at www.java.com.

    EDIT: Sorry I forgot to include the URL... Here it is:
    http://www.grecinos.net/fun/bounce/bounce.html

    -grecinos


    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero
    Please see image here: http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5...gravityhc5.jpg

    How many boxes are required for the gravitational phenomenon to occur.

    In other words, if I continued adding more and more boxes (not touching each other) when will they start connecting together because of their own gravity?
    EDIT: assume this is occuring initially in a zero gravity vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Gravity 
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by grecinos2
    I've been working on this crude project for the past 2 weeks or so. It demonstrates how massive objects in space affect one another. It does not include collision detection but rather gravity deflection.

    It was written as a java applet. It has a crude interface without error checking, so be forewarned. You can modify the size of the "debris field" with the 2 text fields towards the top (x,y respectively). You may want to turn off "Draw Tails" by clicking on that checkbox. The simulation begins to get slow once you reach the 1000 satellite count point. One last thing is that you can add "Planetoid" sized objects by clicking and dragging the cursor anywhere on the window. This is somewhat gimped by the fact that I wanted to make it feasible to insert a Planetoid by single clicking.... I'm rusty at java and haven't figured that out yet.

    The Visible area is around 1600x1024 +/- a few....so set your screen size appropriately.

    Warning: you shouldn't keep it running for a long time as it is prone to lockup after 10-20 mins of continuous iterations. If this happens then just halt the app using the Task Manager. BE SURE TO SAVE YOUR WORK IN PROGRESS BEFORE USING THIS APPLET.

    Let me know if it works for you...you may need to install the lastest Java Client at www.java.com.

    EDIT: Sorry I forgot to include the URL... Here it is:
    http://www.grecinos.net/fun/bounce/bounce.html

    -grecinos

    woah I like your java applet.
    What was the algorithm/math you used?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Alc

    In the same way anything in 0 gravity can orbit something equal in size or larger than itself, im not too sure if a larger object can be pulled into orbit of something already in a fixed orbit? say jupiter orbiting earth... im not sure about that. anyone?
    Technically, no object orbits another, instead they both orbit their common center of gravity or barycenter. The barycenter will be located at a point closer to the center of the greater mass. For instance, the Earth-Moon barycenter is located some 1600 km below the surface of the Earth. The Sun-Jupiter barycenter is located some 82,552 km above the Suns surface. With a Jupiter-Earth orbital arrangement, the barycenter would always be closer to Jupiter's center.

    the boxes themselves each produce equal gravity, and assuming its a vast network of boxes they would all move towards the center of the overall gravitational feild produced, But, assuming its an infinite network of boxes each EXACTLY the same distance from each other, i beleive theyd al be pulled equally in each direction...
    Actually, the boxes would collapse towards each other. The reason for this is Newton's shell theorem. In it, he showed that the gravity from a uniform hollow shell would be zero everywhere in the hollow.

    This applies to this situation thusly. Imagine any given finite spherical volume of our box-filled space surrounded by an infinite volume of box filled space. This surrounding volume can be treated and a series of uniform hollow shells nested inside of each other. Each shell, by Newton's theorem, has no gravitational effect on anything inside of it. Thus the boxes within our given spherical volume feel no net gravitational effect from any of the boxes in the volume surrounding it. They only feel the gravitational effect of the boxes within the given volume. This gravitational effect causes the boxes to draw together.

    Ergo, even in an infinite universe filled with uniformly placed boxes, the boxes will draw together.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Alc
    Alc is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21
    first ive heard of this barycenter jargen, thanks janus, ill look into that one.

    Also please note theres nothing mentioned about the boxes being hollow, although rediculous of me to assume otherwise i suppose, but if the objects were to have a solid center, im sure it would be a different matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Alc
    first ive heard of this barycenter jargen, thanks janus, ill look into that one.

    Also please note theres nothing mentioned about the boxes being hollow, although rediculous of me to assume otherwise i suppose, but if the objects were to have a solid center, im sure it would be a different matter.
    I wasn't talking about the boxes being hollow, read my post again.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Ergo, even in an infinite universe filled with uniformly placed boxes, the boxes will draw together.
    No, infinity has no center.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Gravity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the compliment. I used standard Newtonian Physics.... Essentially everything (except for the tails) in the simulation has mass and the attration to eachother can be measured by the formula (if I remember correctly) F=G(M1M2)/r^2

    It gets real neat when you play with the numbers on the applet.... Say 50 X 10.

    I forgot to mension in my previous post that the simulation takes place only on a 2 dimensional plain...

    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero

    woah I like your java applet.
    What was the algorithm/math you used?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Gravity 
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by grecinos2
    Thanks for the compliment. I used standard Newtonian Physics.... Essentially everything (except for the tails) in the simulation has mass and the attration to eachother can be measured by the formula (if I remember correctly) F=G(M1M2)/r^2

    It gets real neat when you play with the numbers on the applet.... Say 50 X 10.

    I forgot to mension in my previous post that the simulation takes place only on a 2 dimensional plain...

    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero

    woah I like your java applet.
    What was the algorithm/math you used?
    Would making a 3d model of your applet be a lot harder? Are there any tutorials online for java for creating 3d graphics in java. I really want to make a planetary model and customize it to see what happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    No, infinity has no center.
    Irrelevant.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    No, infinity has no center.
    Irrelevant.
    Yes when you
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Imagine
    a sphere excluding gravity, placed here or there. Say we place that imaginary sphere partially through the Earth: wow neat, so much is possible!


    I think by "irrelevant" you really mean, "incomprehensible". Infinity is something people "get" or they don't. It's like evolution... or religion. Try infinity this way: Take a circle. Now find the corners of the circle. No? Then find the arc segment's ends. No? Is it reasonable to say that arcs in nature are made of many straight segments, like your billions of gravitational shells?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Gravity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    I think there's a molecule viewer app from Sun's JDK. I don't remember the URL but it does seem to deal with 3 dimensional spheroids. I don't think it would be too difficult adapting a 3 dimensional version. The most challening part for me would be adapting the graphics to a 3-d model environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by DivideByZero

    Would making a 3d model of your applet be a lot harder? Are there any tutorials online for java for creating 3d graphics in java. I really want to make a planetary model and customize it to see what happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    No, infinity has no center.
    Irrelevant.
    Yes when you
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Imagine
    a sphere excluding gravity, placed here or there. Say we place that imaginary sphere partially through the Earth: wow neat, so much is possible!


    I think by "irrelevant" you really mean, "incomprehensible". Infinity is something people "get" or they don't. It's like evolution... or religion. Try infinity this way: Take a circle. Now find the corners of the circle. No? Then find the arc segment's ends. No? Is it reasonable to say that arcs in nature are made of many straight segments, like your billions of gravitational shells?
    Pong

    I believe Janus is correct. You do not need a centre for an infinte number of boxes to all 'collapse' together by equal amounts. After all, wasn't the Big Bang pretty much a similar thing, but happening in reverse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    I believe Janus is correct. You do not need a centre for an infinte number of boxes to all 'collapse' together by equal amounts. After all, wasn't the Big Bang pretty much a similar thing, but happening in reverse?
    Now you're cornered me to reveal that I disbelieve the BB (universal one, that is) and why I disbelieve.

    Infinity is much like evolution or religion: some people "get it", some don't. Most I find really imagine "lots" or "big" when they say "infinite": "Sure it's infinite but it must end somewhere."
    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
  •