tylers100

Contextual Efficiency Contextual efficiency seems to be a potential key. Which energy source is more efficient (and safe & clean) for a motion of things (e.g. like a spacecraft) with specified speeds (e.g. slow, average, and fast; Pros and cons for each speed)?

Temporarily Stop I think I better stop temporarily from focusing on the gravity thing for time being. Scientific Definitions I thought I understood a bit about the gravity, but not according to standardized or scientific definitions of gravity said by you guys. Tools and Skills What I would need some kind of research tools to experimental test objects for gravity and its behaviour, also have some grasps of mathematics knowledge and skills. But I have nearly none of that at this moment. Mathematics I think I might will try foundational mathematics and other topics related to it in future or so, if time permit. Thank You Thank you guys for participating in this thread.

The one dimensional object conceptually could be an object that exist in one dimension like an ultra thin and small ruler as example, and three points and two lines are geometry structure. Just for approximation. It is just that if I can understand gravity in one dimension with one dimensional objects then could apply that understanding across some dimensions like 2D, and 3D - e.g. from bottom to up. I figured if gravity doesn't work in one dimension, then maybe it couldn't work in other dimensions too because of consistence thing.

@studiot "Gravity is a two way process." I don't think I gave that much thought in past till now. Is that because of gravitational centre of body inherited in every object thus mutual common of having a tendency to toward centre of body? "So the Earth pulls on the Moon and the Moon pulls back on the Earth." Earth and Moon should be technically closely tight together and having a party.. but not so because of motion? Note: I was just making a joke about Earth and Moon having a party. An attempt at humour.

"What do you mean by 'exert gravity'?" As in causing a gravitational pull.

Diagram Picture See attached conceptual visualization in form of diagram picture. It is a way of how I picture gravity with a question below. Question Could it be true that the longer structure makeup of object along a line, exerts more gravity than its sides? Example like a ruler or rod; its would exerts gravity more on its top and bottom than its sides because since its structure makeup is longer from top to bottom thus more gravity on these areas (top and bottom)?

Geometry and Gravity Maybe geometry does change but in proportion way, that change alone likely doesn't result in gravity. Geometry arrangement along with being neutral direction whether relative or fixed does. See: Link Examples "Figure 2: The field through a cube sliced in half through the faces. We can observe the slight distortion of the field lines between the edges and the center of each face." ... "Could a moon or satellite, orbit this cubic planet? We notice that there is slightly greater gravitational force of attraction over the corners of the cube, and hence an orbiting satellite would significantly couple with the spin of the cube, refer Fig. 3." From link: https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1206.3857 (originally link provided on https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125952-question-about-basics-of-gravity/page/5/) Point The point is geometrical arrangement (e.g. of corners) in symmetrical or proportion way while in relative or fixed neutral direction could result in like-hood of gravity.

I'm not so sure about that now. Because: First I think firstly before trying to understand momentum, motion, etc in regards to gravity, better to try understand the gravity while it is stationary (or neutral direction) and singular before delving into relation, momentum, or motion which is what constitutes complexity. Singular Object with Gravity See attached picture. Here is what I see and think: Newton What Newton described is gravity (i.e. neutral direction as centre of gravity with toward direction as gravitational attraction towards it). Einstein What Einstein described is curvature of spacetime (i.e. loop bi-direction connecting end points of each axis dimension). Kind of similar to the train scene in Matrix 3 when Neo was struck inside a train station for some time, he ran into a train rail underground but only arrived at back where he started. The concept is similar to that. But uneven distribution of geometry... maybe not so. Gravity could be symmetric in nature, possibly not uneven distribution of geometry.

Yes, I think so.

If something in subatomic particles is neutral direction whether if relative or fixed, it acts as centre of gravity so other subatomic(s) point to it (gravitational attraction)... could that be possible? "Thought experiment approaches have been suggested as a testing tool for quantum gravity theories.[9][10] In the field of quantum gravity there are several open questions – e.g., it is not known how the spin of elementary particles sources gravity, and thought experiments could provide a pathway to explore possible resolutions to these questions,[11] even in the absence of lab experiments or physical observations." From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Density of Itself-Pulling Speed Maybe Density of radius's itself-pulling speed, maybe. I'm still a bit unsure, tbh. The density power was specified based on my guesswork in order to obtain the most minimum length number ever possible before hitting nearly 0 without really thought about what the density is of what exactly. I think back to what @MigL said about density of what exactly. So, maybe I'm nearing on the speed?

Earth's Radius I tried the following: Earth's 12742 km diameter converted to 12742000 metres then divided into half (6371000 metres) to obtain radius: 6371000 metres / 2^53 density = 0.000000001 So the 53 density is nearly maximum number. But now, I don't know how useful that 53 density could give answer or something useful about gravity. And the result, I'm not sure but possible time? Similar to the time formula: time = distance / speed Maybe Invalid Formula After All Maybe the formula I made is similar to the time formula? Somehow I express some doubts about the formula I made and its usability. Maybe it is invalid after all.

Re-assessment of the Formula Formula Variables: L = length 2 = proportion P = density PL = part of length Formula: L / 2^xP = PL or L / 2^P = PL The formulas is seemingly a mostly geometry formula that divides a length into smaller parts until 0. That is when a limitation is reached. Maybe the formula has some uses for understanding a potential limitation when dividing in proportion way because of the 2. Equation Example 1 L / 2^31 P = 0 Once reached 0, that is when a limitation is realized. Then a decrement of density power by 1: 1 L / 2^30 P = 0.000000001 (this had a nearly maximum number of density power to determine a minimum number of available length) That could be a good thing, because without limitation - how does one begin and end at what point? The 2 is for proportion reason, a part of symmetry I later considered. Useful or Not I'm not sure whether if the formula is useful or not, just the realization of the limitation in length due to 2 proportion in 1-dimensional geometry of what I was doing. Previously, I thought the formula divides length into smaller parts with decrementing lengths toward 0 thus appearance of density of that. But now, it might be possible that these divided parts in 1-dimensional length according to the formula could be still of uniform case of decrementing division because of the 2 proportion thing. I think the formula determines from top down to bottom, not bottom to up. Premise Maybe the premise was that if a 1-dimensional diameter or radius (e.g. singular focus on a planet or moon) factored into the formula then could determine proportional limitation and gravity yield in that. And after all, the gravity acceleration 9.8 m per second ^ 2 is approximated to be at every location on this planet Earth thus a possible 1 dimensional understanding could achieve that. Maybe not. Maybe this is just another one of my struggles to understand gravity in a different way.

More Density = More Mass Fill in I think the formula; l / 2^xP in geometry terms specify how increased density can be created thus allowing more mass to fill in then maybe a bit more gravity? Questioning and Self-Doubt But I'm a bit confused now because the formula includes division which divides length into half by 2 number of times until 0 is reached. It divides whereas increased density should be multiplicated? I'm not sure. Limitation But there is a catch; once the formula if it such one at that; l / 2^xP - specifically P (increased density) make length reach 0, that is when a limitation is reached for increased density. Attach Visual version titled, "Increased Density Transition Across Dimensions"

Maybe I think to potentially see if can understand and see if can conceptually create an artificial gravity - a plating on ground via density method, for onboard spaceflight and exploration. Kind of alternative, maybe more better than rotating version. But you guys pointed out density doesn't matter.