Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Baby Astronaut

gravity, gravity

Recommended Posts

Go to CERNs site, you can read about all their experiments from themselves not some third party. I'd take their word for it.

 

Oddly enough, I have gone to the CERN site. Several times. I have found nothing to contradict any information given to me by 'a third party'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Gravity is not what we all tend to believe for example newtons

apple fell from a tree because earths mass pulled it down,rather space time

,which is flexible, pushes down on mass which we call gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll note that none of the experiments are designed to create BHs to detect hawking radiation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that Gravity is not what we all tend to believe for example newtons

apple fell from a tree because earths mass pulled it down,rather space time

,which is flexible, pushes down on mass which we call gravity.

The problem with this assertion is that reality doesn't go by what we believe, or by what we think is logical or what we think "makes sense". Instead, it goes by hard facts, observations, mathematical models and evidence.

 

Einstein's SR and GR are well substantiated, proven, their mathematical models are sound and produce predictions. They're not very intuitive, but they describe reality MUCH better than Newton's description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It gets better, Baby!* Within an empty universe, a tiny flea's own gravity can pull on a HUGE PLANET a trillion light years away.

Just an idea...say the other forces all had infinite reach like gravity, scientists wouldn't be able to measure it beyond their currently known values, as gravity's force would interfere after that point (being stronger).

 

Is my reasoning correct?

 

* Your nickname was just WAITING to be (ab)used this way at some point, mah friend :)

Well do keep on, I might like that abuse :eyebrow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The energy of a light is getting bigger, when it comes clouser to the objects with a great mass, thatswhy the time goes sllower. My question is what influance does have the gravity of our Universe (the milky way) on the light from outher galaxys and is it possible, that we measure the speed(in years) of expansion of the universe with a failure assuming that velocity of a light is the same between the galaxys and nearby them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just an idea...say the other forces all had infinite reach like gravity, scientists wouldn't be able to measure it beyond their currently known values, as gravity's force would interfere after that point (being stronger).

 

Is my reasoning correct?

 

BA,

 

One important point. All 'mass' in the universe has existed since around the time of the Big Bang. Even if gravity does affect the rest of the universe at 'light speed', all matter used to be a lot closer together, so it's already gravitationally connected by the curved space model.

 

Even if a big black hole is between your two fleas (no matter how far apart they are--they're still made of matter that has existed for all time), that black hole affects both a little less because their mutual gravitational attraction cancels (assuming identical flea mass, of course. . .they're fleas, fer cryin' out loud. . .)

 

And just using the term 'wouldn't be able to measure it' implies that it's still there. So even if the attraction is countered by something else, it's countered a little less.

 

 

Just something to think about.

 

Bill Wolfe

Edited by StrontiDog
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass is a tangible variable. If one got hit with a mass, one can feel it. This is what Newton based gravity on. Space and time are only reference variables. Space and time are not real physical things; according to science. If I threw space and/or time at you, one won't feel anything, since these are only mental constructs.

 

Let me get the logic straight; gravity went from being connected to a tangible variable (mass), into being connected to two mental construct variables (space-time), which are not tangible things. Does this imply that our perception of gravity went from a connection to something real, into an product of the human mind based on intangible things?

 

Here is an analogy to what I am saying. We currently say clouds are made of water. Water is both real and tangible. I will replace that real and tangible water with a mental construct variable; something this is not a tangible thing. For now on, clouds are made of "fairy dust" since this is not tangible but only a mental construct. Clouds are due to distortions within fairy dust, which, in turn, is not even considered tangible.

 

I used to assume space and time had to tangible or the entire space-time model was only a correlation based on nothing tangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.