Question about gravity.

Post Reply New Topic

I was wondering if a sustained mass ...say the moon orbiting earth ... or the planets orbiting the sun, weakened the overall force of the center gravitational force as more mass entered it's field. Seeing as how gravity weakens the further out you get from the sun or the planets ... would there also be a ' carrying capacity ' for mass in the gravitational field in respect to volume?

If that were true there would be no black holes.

ruveyn

What is in the center of a black hole?

The outer edge of a universe. The edge of a black hole is the center of the universe.

As far as I know that doesn't occur. There isn't a 'saturation' effect.

I think such a phenomenon may happen with the strong (nuclear) force, though can't remember for sure.

The Sun is it, the rest is dust.

What is strange and unexplained it the Gravity Rind. Out past Pluto, which is a real ex planet, there are lots and lots of things just hanging around, and not on the orbital plane, but a cloud of various bits and pieces.

As we finally look for Apollo Objects, we find there are several trillion, and we have only been looking for a few years.

So these things orbit the sun, but what is with the ball of left over parts, some quite large, maybe a Brown Star, lots of ice, that just hang around where gravity should be a very minor force?

Minor compared to the other direction, nothing for four or many light years, so even minor should have all of this space junk coming sunward. Except for a few comets, it just stays out there.

Where there is the most, I doubt that space was cleared by Pluto, or the other outer planets, for they are small, and if they had swept that much space, they would have grown.

We are like a ball with the sun in the center, and perhaps as much mass in the rind.

How is this outlaw mass defying the Law of Gravity?

On a related note ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8408957.stm ... gravity waves?


Also ... I'll try to clarify what I'm asking later on ... it's really simple, but also really difficult to put into words.

Actually, Ntstanch, it's a simple misunderstanding, based on thinking of gravity as being a simple force of energy, like an electrical field. Instead, it would appear (thus far, at least, and I kind of hope the appearance is wrong) that gravity is what's called a "field effect", caused by the effect of mass on the structure of space/time. In essence, mass appears to "warp" space/time, causing masses to become attracted to one another based on how strongly space is warped around them. (Imagine the classic illustration of gravity wells as being like balls of various weights on a taut rubber sheet; the more massive ones, like bowling balls, will cause large dimples in the sheet, while smaller ones, like tennis balls, will make smaller dimples. Where two such dimples intersect, the masses will roll toward each other, but since the bowling ball's dimple is deeper, the tennis ball will be rolling downhill, and thus be more attracted to the bowling ball. The comparison is inexact, but illustrates the point by projecting a multidimensional occurrence into two dimensions for simplicity's sake.)

Since gravitation is a field effect, it will effect everything within its field, regardless of how many objects there are - gravitational energy isn't "absorbed", like water, weakening the overall effect, any more than placing three tennis balls near the bowling ball will make its dimple shallower.

Why do you hope the appearance is wrong?

The cosmos has no center.

Analog: Consider the surface of a sphere. Which point on it is the center? Answer; either none or all.

ruveyn

I hope the appearance is wrong because if gravity is solely a field effect, then we can neither negate it (for null-g or antigrav lifting systems) nor create artificial g fields for long-term space travel (much less the "inertial dampers" so beloved of Star Trek).

If, on the other hand, there is such a thing as a Higgs boson that somehow mediates between mass and the hypothesized Higgs field to produce gravity, or even so-called "gravitons" that carry gravity the way electrons carry electromagnetism and photons carry light, then perhaps we can either interfere with Higgs bosons/gravitons or find a way to generate them artificially...

that is dead on right. Newton himself said that gravity casts no shadows. One cannot shield against it. Gravity is the curvature of space. Only a redistribution of mass can change curvature locally.

The only thing that is an inertial force akin to gravitation is so called centrifugal force which is really centripital force and inertia.

ruveyn

The surface of a sphere is a 2nd spatial dimension object wrapped around a 3rd spatial dimension object. The cosmos is a 3rd spatial dimension object. Are the cosmos wrapped around a 4th spatial dimension object?

There is some who think that antimater is repulsed by gravity.




Which mean that we couln't reach the center by conventional mean.

we still don't know what we don't know...

Remains to be seen. That question will be decided by experiment, not philosophical speculations.

ruveyn