Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
#6450 06/29/06 05:38 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Sorry about the misguidance to that google search. Well perhaps I should just direct you to the university where I teach instead:

"The laser-ranging data are used to test whether gravitational self-energy obeys the Equivalence Principle, because the Earth's mass has a 4 ? 10-10 contribution from gravitational binding energy...."
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivtst.html

Simply put:
weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity

The more gravity ... the more acceleration.
The more acceleration ... the more earth weights.


DA Morgan
.
#6451 06/29/06 04:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA offers:

"Simply put:
weight = mass x acceleration due to gravity

The more gravity ... the more acceleration.
The more acceleration ... the more earth weights."

I suppose that a ball traveling the fastest will cause the most damage to a person "due to the extra weight" flowing from the acceleration. That is straightforward enough. This does not, however, have anthing to do with gravity because in this instance gravity is not the cause for the acceleration.

Say the Earth wieghs x. It is never at rest so when we arrive at a value for x at any particular moment we will get a result that reflects Earth's inherent Mass AND the added effect of enhancement due to acceleration. All moving objects in this System would portray a Mass that is a combination of the inherent Mass plus the acceleration for a total weight.

Taken literally, Rhis means we do not know the Mass of any object unless we can deduct the contribution due to the acceleration so what's left is the "real" Mass of the object. I am being as brief as I know how.

Let's take Jupiter for an example. We arrive at the relative value of x for each satellite. Each of them revolves slower the more distance they are from Jupiter. Each object will show a measure for x that includes a factor for it's orbital velocity and the formula suggests that we will over value x for the objects closer to Jupiter. Simply put if we have an object "B" twice as far from Jupiter than object "A" our measure of the Mass will be greater even if the objects were exactly identical in composition.
I can not convince myself of this based on what I think I know the system. I am aware that it would require much more Mass/energy to slow down the faster "A" but I have difficulty thinking of that as weight as opposed to inertia.

A curious hypothetical. Suppose we shot a rocket to the moon. We accelerate the items Mass to escape gravitation. As it accelerates "it continues to get heavier" and it requires more power to maintain acceleration of the added weight. Our rocket compounding the effect falls back to the Earth because of power failure.

Your formula would relate only to objects being accelerated by gravitational effects, I guess.
jjw

#6452 06/30/06 01:10 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
just in case someone might get confused about this.
..................
I suppose that a ball traveling the fastest will cause the most damage to a person "due to the extra weight" flowing from the acceleration.
..................
I believe that you are refering to momentum.

when an object is in motion it has momentum.
this would be the additional force that the person would feel.
the ball would weigh the same no matter how fast it is traveling.


and you are right nothing that we weigh here on earth would weigh the same if the earth was not rotating on its axis.
and doing all the other moves it makes.

of course we would either freeze or boil if it ever stopped.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6453 06/30/06 01:29 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I thought this was interesting.
................................
I do not think it is accurate to say that Mass and energy are interchangable. Some other thing must be added to convert one to the other, like the way we convert water and ice. It would follow from my viewpoint that energy has not been shown to have gravity. What "gravity has gravity" means is beyound me, and I admit it.
................................

mass can generate energy due to gravity.
the center of the earth is verry hot because the pressures exerted on the center.

everything from the edge of space downward to the center presses in on the center.

some say that gravity becomes weaker closer to the center but how can that be?

if so then gravity is in layers as DA says.

if gravity becomes weaker closer to the center then we are measuring gravity wrong.

because gravity is what we use to measure a object as it falls.

and if an object fell far enought then its acceleration due to gravity would diminish.

it would slow its acceleration.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6454 06/30/06 04:40 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw004 asks:
"I suppose that a ball traveling the fastest will cause the most damage to a person "due to the extra weight"

Response:
And I suppose that the concept of mass increasing with velocity is new to you thus you are unaware of the fact that the effect is relativistic and was covered in essentially perfect detail by Einstein.

Paul:

Of course gravity becomes weaker as one approaches the center of the earth. If the earth were hollow and an object were to be placed into the center of the hollow earth it would feel on gravity except related to gravitational anomalies (such as Mt. Everest), the moon, the sun, etc.

Why? Because the mass of the earth would be equally spread around them pulling equally in all directions.


DA Morgan
#6455 06/30/06 12:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
DA:

Im not dissagreeing with you , nor am I trying to start an argument or anything of that nature.

I am concerned only with your opinion of where the highest level of gravity exist in our planet ( earth ).

this because I have always just took for granted that the gravity constant .. 9.8m/sec^2 .. that we use to determine the weights of objects on earth would be .. constant .. and not variable.

if you would please answer these few questions it would be greatly appreciated.

1) is the gravity at the exact center of the earth near zero?

2) is there a point in the galaxy that does not feel the earths gravity?

3) if the earth were a large donut shaped planet would there be gravity in the center of the donut hole that would hold an object in the center?

4) if the earth were a oblong cylindrical planet
several hundred thousand miles long and with a cross sectional diameter the size of the diameter of the earth , would the effects of the earths gravity be weaker at the earths center .. the middle cross section of the cylinder and stronger at the ends of the cylinder?

I ask these question strictly for scientific purposes to quench my need to know.

and am looking forward to your reply.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6456 06/30/06 01:10 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
ALSO DA:

taking into consideration our galaxy.

thinking of all of the stars and planets and everything within our galaxy as one object.

although seperated as atoms in matter are seperated.

everything in our galaxy is rotating around our galaxys center and spiraling into our galaxys center.

the black hole at our galaxys center is devouring our galaxy.

why is our galaxy not shaped as a large donut or hollow instead of like a large pizza?

if gravity decreases closer to the center of an object then why is the strongest gravity in our galaxy at its center .. our black hole ..?

why are there no black holes located (.5 radius) of the pizza?

why are they always in the center?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6457 06/30/06 01:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
DA:
Quote:
Of course gravity becomes weaker as one approaches the center of the earth. If the earth were hollow and an object were to be placed into the center of the hollow earth it would feel on gravity except related to gravitational anomalies (such as Mt. Everest), the moon, the sun, etc.

Why? Because the mass of the earth would be equally spread around them pulling equally in all directions.
would the planet be a stable body if the planet were hollow or donut shaped?

would it also have a donut shaped core?

would the gravities of each side pull or tug the hollow planet until it became a solid sphere?

when gasses are observed in space they do not form hollow or donut shaped bodies they form spherical bodies of gasses.

if you were to release thousands of beads inside the space station they would form a sphere of beads not a donut or a hollow body.

just like water that is released inside the station.

this I believe is due to the attraction of bodies to bodies because of gravity.

they would not line up and form a donut shaped body.

if gravity were weaker at the center of a body then a gas in near zero would form a hollow sphere because the gravity at (.5 radius the gas)
would be strongest.

the strongest gravity prevailing over the weakest
and the hollow would form.

but this does not occur.

everything points to a constant g.

nothing points to a variable g.

the constant is derived from the amount of mass a body has.

g is constant.

if the earths mass were the size of jupiter or the size of our sun or the size of a single atom the constant g (9.8 m/sec^2) would remain intact.

theres where I find your opinion to be wrong.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#6458 06/30/06 02:13 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
earlier I stated that gasses form spherical bodies in space, it would be more like a caotic mass that collects over time , the way it would happen I think is that there would be several areas inside the mass that would develope large gravity fields these would tug on each other giving rotation to the different masses inside the mass as they come close to and pass each other , like the slingshot effect used in space travel.
the overall collectivitity of the masses would form a central gravity at the center of the newly forming mass this center of gravity would be constantly changing due to the movement of the seperate masses within the mass.
there would most likely be a point where it would form something that resembles a pizza due to its rotation.
then it would collapse in on itself due to its gravity and eventually that mass would form a sphere.

almost all bodies in space are spherical.
other than the ones that are shaped by collisions.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
D
Dolson21
Unregistered
Dolson21
Unregistered
D
Without going into the whole topic of gravity (because that is a gigantic topic in its own right) I would say that acceleration is simply a physical manifestation of energy going from potential to kinetic.

I also think that explaining what causes something as simple as acceleration is extremely difficult, however, because so often we confuse what causes an event with what results from that event, or a summary of what that event actually is.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
What causes acceleration ?

Quote:
Acceleration shows the change in velocity in a unit time.


How much is a penny worth ?

Quote:
a penny is made of copper plated scrap metal.


Why is a red barn painted red ?

Quote:
red barns are mostly found on farms


Looking for spam ? Get some spam today and auto spammers here!


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 4
E
eeb Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 4
Gravity a Simple Idea
© Eugene Bunt

What if luminiferous aether were flexible, depending on time-scale for its local fabric size?

The greatest scientific minds have unsuccessfully searched for gravity for over a hundred years using the best equipment available. To date, nobody has found any evidence of a gravity particle or gravity wave. What if we accept experimental results and look for another reason for gravity?

If gravity were the product of a collection of mass, you would expect the center of the Earth to be hollow because the pull from all sides would cancel the pull from opposite sides there.

Einstein proposed that gravity is caused by warped space/time. This idea has been validated by astronomers photographing background constellations during a solar eclipse. The results were astonishing in that the star's positions were not drawn closer to the Sun, but were farther from the surface as if you were observing them through a huge positive lens. Einstein described the mechanics of this bending of light by imagining the process of light passing through a series of elevators rising from the Sun's surface (The Evolution of Physics © 1938 by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld page 220.) As light enters the far-side moving toward you observation point, it enters at a higher level, as it traverses the rising elevator it would necessarily exit at a lower level on your side. This transfer of light from elevator to elevator bends light so that it appears to be coming from a wider angle than a straight line past the surface of the Sun.

Putting two ideas together: Sir Isaac Newton first law of motion: 1>There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. This means a body moves through space freely without resistance. 2>Einsteins rising elevator proposal, the fabric of space is being generated within a bodies gravitational field. All matter has kinetic energy, momentum. Change in momentum lags change in velocity. Space move freely through matter without resistance. Matter acquires momentum by moving through space. Matter is stopped by the Earth's surface creating deceleration. Gravity is the same as centripetal force, change in direction due to an outside force. Each new wave of passing space adjust the momentum of matter according to its current state of acceleration because change in momentum lags change in velocity.

See my google knol, Electrically Stimulated Acceleration by Eugene Bunt.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5