Please explain on an atomic level why a ball rolling down a straight slope will accelerate. If you can't explain that, then explain why a ball dropped from a plane will accelerate as it falls.

And yes I have done reasearch, all I get is formulas and practical uses, but no explanation of why acceleration occurs in the first place.

A center of mass is acted upon by external force (inertial acceleration) or pursues a minimal action geodesic path through space (gravitational acceleration). Why is any of this a mystery?

A center of mass is zero dimensional. That is smaller than atomic.

Linear acceleration is rather boring. Angular acceleration is much sexier. You don't see vigorous tap dancing like Mach's Principle or frame dragging decorating linear acceleration.

Physics is about "how." Religion is about "why." If you want a working flush toilet, empirical observation suggests "how" is a much shorter and more fruitful path than "why." Vatican toilets are the products of engineers not priests. Test of faith!

Feynman Lectures on Physics (vol I). This Nobel prize-winner says there is no mechanism for gravity.

I'm sure progress has been made and maybe there is a good idea now. (Wheeler's book on gravitation, which I haven't read, might be a place to start. It's called simply "Gravitation.")

For gravitation or for electricity there is a force that causes the acceleration (change of velocity). It may be that there is no better explanation than the math, but for some of us that's real enough.

To be a bit more precice

1) The center of mass is not acted upon by anything. It is a mathematical construct to make simple mechanics easy. In the case of gravity, the force acts upon each particle with mass in an object. One can pretend that all the mass is located in the center of gravity (see 2) for drawing a free body diagram and doing freshman physics. But, just because you believe in something doesn't mean that your faith in it is well founded.

2) to be more precice than is normally necessary, you may want to refer to center of gravity to include the case where the force of gravity varies over the dimension of the object being studied.

You can also use Conservation of Energy . The ball rolling down the slope is losing potential energy and therefore its kinetic energy has to increase.

(1) acceleration is caused by an external force.
(2) the external force you are questioning is gravity...( the earths gravity in both senarios ).
(3) gravity cannot be explained on an atomic level because gravity has no mass ---> no atoms.
(4) the earths gravity is due to its mass.
(5) molecules attract each other because of their mass.
(6) a single molecule has gravity that will attract other molecules , think of the earth as a mass of molecules attracting other molecules.


hope this helps.

paul wrote:
"(3) gravity cannot be explained on an atomic level because gravity has no mass ---> no atoms."

Not correct. Gravity has gravity. The mass of the earth is greater than the mass the earth would have were it not for gravity.

"(4) the earths gravity is due to its mass."

Only partly true. The mass of the earth is primarily the result of its mass: Not all of it.

"(5) molecules attract each other because of their mass."

Not at all true. The attraction of molecules has essentially nothing to do with their mass. Have you heard of electrons?

"(6) a single molecule has gravity that will attract other molecules...."

True only in the same sense that one could say that wind can be created by the flight of a butterfly.

DA wrote...
Not correct. Gravity has gravity.
--> then send me a specimen of gravity so that I can observe it through a microscope please.
DA wrote...
The mass of the earth is greater than the mass the earth would have were it not for gravity.
--> gravity is just a word we use to describe an effect , it has no mass , no physical properties , it does not exist.
could you go get a pound of gravity off the shelf please?
DA wrote...
Only partly true. The mass of the earth is primarily the result of its mass: Not all of it.
--> I think there must have been a typo here so I will leave this one alone.
DA wrote...
Not at all true. The attraction of molecules has essentially nothing to do with their mass. Have you heard of electrons?
--> If you were to pour out a globe of water inside the iss in near zero gravity and then charge its north pole positive and its south pole negative would the globe separate into two globes?
or would the globes gravity keep the globe intact?
DA wrote...
True only in the same sense that one could say that wind can be created by the flight of a butterfly.
-->if it were not for the earths gravity you could hold two marbles in your hand and they would try to become one mass.
they would join together due to their gravity.

electrons are the little things that orbit atoms.
they do have charges and when these charges change they change their orbit.
the orbital change is due to the gravity of the center of the atom.
the electrons lose energy by some means which slows their orbit , naturally if the orbit slows
the centrifugal force due to the angular velocity of the electron becomes weaker then the atoms center of gravity can easily pull the electron closer to the center of its mass.

electrons of atoms can be slowed to almost no movement at all and this is how scientist have been able to almost reach zero kelvin , by draining energy from mass.

gravity is just another word.
its like time , it really isnt there...

and another thing...
the discussion was about...

Please explain on an atomic level why a ball rolling down a straight slope will accelerate. If you can't explain that, then explain why a ball dropped from a plane will accelerate as it falls.
(1) atomic reference dropped.

(2)why a ball rolling down a straight slope will accelerate.

--> a negatively or positively charged ball would still roll down the slope. due to gravity , not its charge.

(3)then explain why a ball dropped from a plane will accelerate as it falls.

--> a negatively or positively charged ball would still fall from a plane. due to gravity , not its charge.

if you remove the force of gravity then you could float a frog for around $50,000.00 or so and your grandmother for apx $250,000.00

like they did in japan.

Paul wrote:
"--> then send me a specimen of gravity so that I can observe it through a microscope please."

It would be far more valuable if I sent you a synapse. Do neutrinos exist? Send me one!

You lack of understanding of basic physics principles. Coupled with a lack of imagination mature enough to make you go to google.com to see if I was right puts you right there on the evolutionary scale with most other primates.

Let me show you how hard it is to educate oneself when one is not lazy. Went to google.com. Put in the search criterion "gravity has gravity." Given that I don't believe in spoon feeding except with infants ... so if you wish to eat from the tree of knowledge you are going to have to come to the table.

no thanks DA
Im not that hungry if the food your serving is tainted.

but I suppose that if it is found on google then you are correct ... right?

if I read somewhere on google that the earth is
really flat then does that mean that it is flat?

in fact the earth was flat a long time ago
according to those who knew everything back then...

it would seem that you were called for supper and sat down at the table a little late when only the scraps were left to eat.

if you think that the food from the tree of knowledge can be found on google then that alone tells me that you went to bed hungry.

knowledge can be found on google but nonsense can also be found there , of course it is knowledge that determins which one you choose.

I have followed a few of your bickerings with others and became uninterested to say the least.
it almost seems that you want to win even if your wrong.

I do not want to continue this scrapping for ten more pages or so until one of us gives in.

so here have it your way.

gravity has gravity
and that has gravity and gravity has more gravity and more gravity and more and more and more and then gravity begins to have grandchildren gravities and then we follow on down into the generations of gravity until we come to the part where gravity begins to have mass because there is so much gravity...

Paul wrote:
"Im not that hungry if the food your serving is tainted. but I suppose that if it is found on google then you are correct ... right?"

Wilfull ignorance doesn't wear well. Those with brains, and that use them, find that google.com takes them to Princeton University. Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, UC Berkeley, Stanford. But I guess if you are used to the trailer park mentality you just eat whatever is served up to you.

I understand a substantial amount of the oxygen inhaled is used by the brain which converts it to CO2. Thanks for helping fight global warming.

Robert Miller questions:

?Please explain on an atomic level why a ball rolling down a straight slope will accelerate. If you can't explain that, then explain why a ball dropped from a plane will accelerate as it falls.?

I will avoid demonstrating my lack of understanding how things work at the atomic level. Also I do not have the faintest idea why that would be relevant to the issue.

The majority opinion tells us that in a vacuum stuff attracts other stuff. An object falling to Earth has been measured accelerating at 32.61 feet per second, per second, etc. Mr. Miller wants to know why doesn?t the object stay uniform at just the first 32.61 feet per second all the way down. The first issue is why does it fall at all and the majority will blame gravity for the feat. That is only enough to get the fall started and does not, of itself, tell us why the object speeds up continually until contact.

My most likely unpopular opinion will first explain why the ball on the inclined slope continues to gain momentum and my answer is that in the instance of the Earth?s effect it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the Earth?s gravitational force to drag the object faster and faster. When you reject that idea as blasphemy then you may also want to denounce the possibility that the same rotation contributes to the straight fall object. When inertia is overcome by a contributing force the removal of the preexisting inertia has an accelerating effect on the object.

That explanation should be found objectionable enough for the clan.
jjw

I guess you were right DA MORGAN

now I understand how acceleration works!!
(1) its the initial gravity that initialy begins the acceleration.
(2) then its the additional "gravity has gravity" that further accelerates.
(3) and then those two gravities combine forming a larger force of gravity because of their greater magnatude resulting in further acceleration.
(4) and this keeps repeating etc...etc...etc.........

YOU HAVE FOUND THE REASON WHY THINGS ACCELERATE.
!!!! BRILLIANT !!!!
have we found a way to measure the speed at which an object falls using your "gravity has gravity"
nonsense.

or does your additional "gravity has gravity" gravity have any measure of gravitational forces associated with it?

NASA has.

You, on the other hand, should go back to playing dodge ball.

Wilfull ignorance drives me crazy so I decided to put an end to this nonsense for those who care about reality.

1. e=mc^2 a simplified version of Einstein's famous equation equates mass with energy.

2. If mass has gravity ... energy has gravity.

3. Gravity is a form of energy ... the rest of the mental activity should be simple enough for a cat do to.

But for those hard of thinking here is a link to a page where the gravitational contribution to earth's mass from its motion are calculated and discussed.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node3.html

For those hard of reading as well as thinking here is some of the relevant text:

"The main contribution to the gravitational potential arises from the mass of the earth; the centripetal potential correction is about 500 times smaller, and the quadrupole correction is about 2000 times smaller."

As this article is about GPSs the contribution caused by gravity, itself, is not discussed as it is too small to matter.

Since I don't believe in spoon feeding ... those interested in finding papers that discuss the contribution to earth's mass caused by its gravitational field should look up "Gravity Probe B" and "University of Washington" where I teach. Yes the work was done here.

gravity is what we call the force exerted by one atom on all other atoms. in theory, the atoms of your body are pulling on the atoms of the farthest galaxy. with the understand of the principle of a force being exerted is the square root of the distance, we can of course see that your not having much affect. the effect is acculative. meaning that when all the atoms of the earth exert the force on the ball, the ball is pulled towards the earth and the earth is pulled towards the ball by 32 feet per second. due to its considerable more mass the earths enertia does not allow it to move much, but the ball moves easily.

this force is applied constantly, meaning that its not actually happening in seconds and foot, but in millseconds and micro inches and smaller. in each of those measurement, the enertia of the object has been affected, so in the next measure, the object is already affected, and is affected anew.

dehammer wrote:
"gravity is what we call the force exerted by one atom on all other atoms."

It is not. Gravity has nothing to do with atoms. Why is it so hard for you to grasp simple concepts.

Instead of pointificating on what you don't understand try something new. Try finding out what gravity actually is.

It seems that complex answers to questions that are fairly simple works well for some people.

I did not elaborate before but there is a very commonplace and universal thing about gravitation. The planets nearest the Sun revolve faster than those planets farther away. The same is true for all orbiting objects such as our realtionship with the Moon. If we have an object in orbit and wish to slow it down for some reason we need only move it a ways to a larger orbit.

The issue can be approached as I offered in another topic. We must account for the speed increae of objects revolving around the Sun or a planet and my simplistic approach of denser gravitation effects "dragging" the objects in ever increasing speeds works. This is what i referred to elsewhere as the gravitational envelope that is rotating with the planet. When the object is farther away there is "slippage" and all of this has been calculated in a very simple manner my me to explain how and why the planets rotate and at what predictable equatorial velocity they will do it depending on the size of the planet and the planets distance from the Sun.

There is no need for Einstein or the University of Washington to tell us the Whats for here.

I recognise that the academics answers will be more professional and sublime as well as a lot more complex and I have no disagreement with it.
jjw

DA Morgan wrote:
It is not. Gravity has nothing to do with atoms. Why is it so hard for you to grasp simple concepts.

Instead of pointificating on what you don't understand try something new. Try finding out what gravity actually is.

instead of pointificating on other ppls ideas being wrong, why dont you read what they write.

with out atoms there is no gravity. so me where there is a gravity source without atoms.

that does not mean that gravity is part of the atoms, but that whatever force gravity is (its one of the 4 prime forces of the universe, along with strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromanetic force) it is in the atom. since no one yet knows what creats it, it might be the force that creats the atom. the point is, its a matter of chicken and the egg. wiether gravity creats the atom or the atom creats gravity or neither, its still a matter of the atom having that force with in itself. you can still say that the atoms are pulling other atoms towards its, since gravity has little effect on anything not related to atoms (and yes light and most, if not all, forms of energy are related in that they are somehow interactive).

dehammer ... you asked:
"why dont you read what they write."

then you wrote:
"with out atoms there is no gravity."

I read what you wrote. You are 100% absolutely, totally, completely, beyond redemption WRONG! There is nothing correct about your statement. NOTHING!

You've taken hard of thinking to a new level.

I've said this over and over and over again and you still can't seem to get what is an elementary concept.

Is there anyone else out here at SAGG that can't get the most elementary implication of e=mc^2 that is over 12 years old? Good grief this is sad!

I am not sure what the argument is but since everbody relies on Google - check a few:

Howstuffworks "How does gravity work?"The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces ...
science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages


Light, Atoms, Galaxies and GravityThe concept that energy may act to create charges independent of particles leads to new models for the photon, atoms, and gravity.
www.petcom.com/~john/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages


Does gravity affect atoms?Does gravity affect atoms? ... Gravity affects atoms the same way it affects all other matter. Every atom creates its own gravitational field which attracts ...
education.jlab.org/qa/atomgravity_01.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

It's not for me to say!
jjw

da i just realise what your problem with this is. your claiming that gravity is light.

gravity is one of the four base forces in the universe. they are strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, and electomagnetic force.

e=mc2 pertains to light, which is electromagnetic force.

gravity is a completely different force.

again you did not read what i posted and only took out what it was you needed to dump on.

let me try to put it simple.

gravity is a force that is in the nucli... opps thats not a simple term

gravity is in the middle of an atom. no living human knows what it is exactly. but they do know it is one of the building blocks of the universe. opps another big word. ok. how about its the building blocks of all things man knows about.

it combines... er.. it adds to the power of electromagnet... theres no way to say that simple.... and strong nuclear and weak nuclear... things like the sun and heat... to build the atom. then they combine more to build molocules and then to pull other atoms and molocules towards itself. all the while the other atoms are doing the same.

when the other atoms are part of a large group, they tend to move very slowly towards the single or small group of atoms, which are more free to move. the result is that the small group of atoms will increase the speed towards the large group. the more atoms are in one group the stronger their combined streagth is.


again i will say this as simply as possible. gravity is not the atom, but its the building block of the atom. therefor your not going to find any place where there is not gravity, and no atom is involved. it can exist, but it will not normally do so for long without begining to build the blocks we call atoms.

perhaps you should learn more about science before you claim to be the last word on it.

dehammer wrote:
"your claiming that gravity is light."

No No No No No! You really are hard of thinking. That is not what I've said. It isn't even a reasonable misinterpretation of what I've said.

Can someone loan dehammer a synapse.

you used the formula for light, and claimed it for gravity. put it in a mathimatic formula

energy = mass x light squared.

if energy = gravity then gravity = mass x light scaured. that means your were saying that gravity is mass (atoms) time light squared. can you see how wrong this is.

gravity is one of the 4 basic forces, not a form of one of them.

before you complain about others lack of synapse, you should get yours uncrossed.

e = mc^2 is not about light.


It defines a transformation.

Umm psst.. hey morgan.. light IS form of ENERGY! can you say solar cells? the purdy bright light when they pop of nuke? what plants use to grow? Dark matter? need more? LMAO

More no. But something demonstrating sentience. Now that would be welcome.

You likely don't recall these gems posted by dehammer:

1. "gravity is what we call the force exerted by one atom on all other atoms."

2. "your claiming that gravity is light."

3. "energy = mass x light squared."

These are the topic.

what do you think the c stands for. it stands for light. better go back to school.


DA Morgan wrote

3. "energy = mass x light squared."

you have a problem with me writting the formula in english? or perhaps in the language of politics it means different things that it does in science. you have all but admitted to be a political scince teacher, so how would you really understand physics.

c is the SPEED OF light: Not light.

The speed of a car is not a car.
The speed of a train is not a train.
The speed of a plane is not a plane.

you definately are a teacher of political science. your main points usually have to do with the wording of things rather than the actually meaning. of course its the speed. that does not mean its not used that way. if everyone understand that light means speed of light, why bother spelling it out. the point is, its still relative to light. the speed of the car is relative to cars. if your talking about car speeds your not going to be discussing horses.

light is made up of photons. this is the smallest quantively defineable (by our present lvl of science) opject. its either a particle that acts as an energy wave, or an energy wave that acts as a particle. (i studied laser, so i know about light) any thing smaller than it is appearantly energy. any thing bigger that that is a particle.

gravity is a field, it reaches everywhere, goes through everything. energy cant.

here is an analagy to gravity.

the ocean has waves. these waves can travel 100's of miles an hours. that does not mean the water moves anywhere. if there is a current it could be going in a completely different direction of the wave.

there is a theory as yet unproven that gravity has waves. if it does it will be like the waves of the ocean. just because the waves are moving, the gravity might not be.

dehammer wrote:
"of course its the speed"

And of course you got it wrong repeatedly because you can't be bothered with verifying facts or being accurate.

Accuracy is hardly the basis of politics ... it is the basis of mathematics and the sciences.

But the point is still that your statements were incorrect, all of them, and you have shown that you don't have the integrity required to acknowledge that you were wrong. No surprise.

show me where im wrong.

energy = mass x (speed of) light squared. what is wrong with this.

since the only math for light is speed of light, that means everyone knows that c = speed of light, only those in politics are more interested in slinging mud rather that the reality. the only time science is interested in slinging mud is when its measture the impact of mud or something simular.

you are very good at finding mud to sling. the problem is that political science is not considered REAL science by any one put political clingerons.

dehammer wrote:
"energy = mass x (speed of) light squared. what is wrong with this."

Wow. You copied something Einstein wrote. Ooh baby. Can you teach me Control-C, Control-V too?

Go back to your original statements ... the were incorrect. Restating things correctly after the fact is not a substitute for moral integrity. You WERE wrong. Maybe you've learned something from the experience and won't be so flagrantly and arrogantly wrong in the future. Maybe.

It wasn't slinging mud ... you were wrong. And in playing games you still are conveniently ignoring the fact that the original statements involved a claim that gravity was caused by atoms; it isn't. My use of a simplified statement of Einstein's formula (Einstein didn't actually write it) was to point out that energy and mass are interchangeable and both create gravitational fields.

You were wrong!
You are wrong!
At the rate you're going you will still be wrong!

my restating that was for the benfit of non (real) scienctist and those who understand their ways. as someone that studied lasers in college, we never spelled it out as 'speed of light', we always said 'light'. why should since light is a constant. As a student of politics im sure that the exact wording is extreamly important as even a putting words in slightly different order changes their meaning a very small amount. in science when you are refering to a formula, that is known, there is no need to spell it out.

therefore since we are talking real science here, and not politics, your the one that needs to figure out where you went wrong.

mainly you went wrong when you decided to change the subject from real science to politics since you failed to win the arguement on its own merits.

as i said, the subject is gravity. gravity is not an energy, it is a force. as such the formula for energy is not relavant to it.

if you cant stay on track, and cant help politicing, stop posting.

plus you obviously are not reading things correctly. i said that gravity is in the atom, not that it was created by the atom. i did say that they dont know if it creates the atom or what, but the gravity is from inside the atom.

i said it was mud slinging because you keep insulting ppl rather than discuss the subject. that is mudslinging and you are extreamly good at it.

dehammer wrote:
"as someone that studied lasers in college, we never spelled it out as 'speed of light', we always said 'light'."

Then you were wrong and still are. Demonstrate some integrity and acknowledge it. Funny ... you studied them ... in the 1960's I was building them. I still have two gallium arsenide phosphide, two helium-neon, and one CO2 in my lab.

understanding of how things have changed have improved since the 1960's. its possible to build a very complicated lighting system, without having the slightest understanding of how electricity works.

beyound that i refuse to continue mudslinging with a professional.

How can gravity have gravity? That's like saying time is affected by time.

I understand your confusion RM but it is actually rather simple. Mass an energy are interchangeable and thus both create a gravitational field.

Google "gravity has gravity"

I think it is entertaining to watch DA and dehammer exchange ideas.

I tried DA's Google "gravity has gravity" and I saw a lot of comments on gravity. None of the titles on the first pages used the words "gravity has gravity" so I only opened a few and found nothing of help. From my own part I can see why the idea would be confusing. It is like saying that the gravity related to an object generates gravity of its own which is to me like saying gravity is "creating" a separate gravitational force. If this was true why would not this new gravitational force also create an additional gravity and so on and so on?

Mass can be said to have a potential of energy. But we know of no Mass in this System that is at rest so we note by the movement of the known Mass energy is also involved. People are still trying to measure the strength of gravity and from what little I read they are not doing it as if there were layers of gravity that were also producing more gravity.

I have never learned how E=Mc^2 is supposed to relate to the existence or non-existence of gravity. I thought it was a measure of the energy we can expect to get from a given amount of Mass. To say that energy has gravity is a little missleading to me because the photon is just about pure energy and appears to have no gravitational field of its own. An electric current is energy and has a magnetic field around a conductor but we do not call it a gravitational field.

While admitting my lack of backround here 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.
jjw

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 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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

DA:
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.

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.

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.

What causes acceleration ?



How much is a penny worth ?



Why is a red barn painted red ?



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

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.