Gravity

Mass is what "makes" gravity. As a planet grows from assimilating other matter and larger stuff like rocks it has more gravity.

That still works today. It's a good thing that the universe is expanding, or the whole shebang would implode on itself and we'd have to start all over again, from the beginning.

(From the Department of Redundancy Department)

No, mass blocks gravitrons from pushing us onto the surface of the planet!

The more dense the mass the larger the quantity of gravitrons that are blocked allowing the ones coming from outer space to hold us onto the surface.

Gravity is little more than the LACK of equalized forces coming from all directions which would normally hold us in a weightless state.

I used to think it had to do with things spinning and orbiting but not after reading that whole paper and sleeping on it for a couple of days. Our moon was the one puzzle because it doesn't spin in relation to the Earth.

Suppose there actually exists a 'gravitron' particle, devoid of a resting mass, whose only characteristic is spin.

Normal particles without resting mass have spin, vibration and orbit themselves creating a 'center'. Or if they have only two of those characteristics, one of them is ~twice as much as the other one.

Probably why quarks can replicate themselves when you seperate them into two parts.

Pertubation comes when the longitudinal axis of the vibration moment spins out to the circumference of the orbit and for a very brief moment the vibration vector lines up parallel to the orbit and causes a wobble.

***********

Now about 'gravitrons', suppose they are massless 'particles' that only have spin which would make them hard to detect since they would not respond to magnetic fields or each other.

If objects in space, away from the blocking effects of a planet, were bombarded by gravitrons from every direction, billions of times per second they would become weightless.

If the mass of a planet were dense enough to absorb these gravitrons there would be an imbalance in impact of the gravitrons on an object sitting on the surface coming from the opposite direction from the planets surface.

The object would in effect be pushed to the surface of the planet, not pulled to it.

This would explain why the centrifigal force needed to keep something in orbit is necessary and works all the way around the planet but is affected when planets/moons/suns line up.

This would also account for the fact that gravity APPEARS to act spontaenously (minus the 20C time lag for 'gravitron's to clear out of the space between the an affected object and the heretofore assumed source of the gravity).

This would also account for the seemingly continuous 'fabric' of gravity. It really isn't a fabric, it is a multi-dimensioned medium, the fabri

A good analogy would be something with neutral buoyancy floating in fish tank equipped with a tube with a trap door centered beneath it coming from the bottom of the tank. When you opened the trap door on the tank, the supporting water would drain out eliminating the buoyancy effect and the object would drop out the tube.

So YES!, warp drive could be achieved to about 20C if you could line up a dense source of gravitrons to the rear of your space ship and have a cone shaped force field out the front of the ship that would create a void of gravitrons directly in front of the ship, the same way super-cavitating torpedoes work like the VA-111 Shkval.

If you need to name this concept of gravity you have my permission to name it after me! :)

There are so many errors in your post that I hesitate to even respond, but...

•There is only one 'r' in 'graviton'.

•A graviton is simply a quantum of gravitational energy, similar to how a photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy. A photon can be treated as a particle or a wave; depending on what property is being studied, one concept or the other may be more useful. As I understand it, gravitons can also be considered either waves or particles.

•Centrifugal (away from center, note spelling) force does not exist, in the manner that most people consider it. A centripetal (towards center) force is required to keep any object following a circular path. If centripetal force is suddenly removed, as when the tether on a tetherball suddenly breaks, the object will immediately follow a straight path tangent to the previous circle.

•Etc...

dk

sorry for the mispells, it was 2 am last night when I wrote it but just posted it but maybe if they find that a graviton is more like a neutron than a photon or proton they will change the spelling...if they find one.

As far as centripetal vs centrifugal goes, if gravity was a force exerted by the planet on an object in orbit it would certainly be centripetal in nature.

However, if the force holding the object in orbit came from beyond the object and held it in orbit by directing it's force against the object from a direction opposite the center point of the radius of the objects orbit, then I think you could call it a centrifugal force.

What are you doing up at 2AM? If you have any resemblance to me whatsoever, your thinking is hardly focused at that hour!

"As far as centripetal vs centrifugal goes, if gravity was a force exerted by the planet on an object in orbit it would certainly be centripetal in nature."

Where did you find that 'if'? The fact that gravity is indeed a force exerted by a planet on an object in orbit (or NOT in orbit) has been proven thousands of times. Every satellite ever launched has verified that fact, and we would never have succeeded in getting men to the Moon and back without understanding that fact. The same is true of every other space mission, especially when you consider the use of the 'slingshot effect' where we deliberately make a spacecraft pass near a planet or other celestial object to increase its speed toward some other destination.

True, but the planet you are slingshoting around is blocking the gravitons from pushing the ship on into space.

What moves the ship around the planet is the planet blocking the gravitons to the side of the ship facing the planet coupled to the ships forward momentum to create the arc around the planet.

The math is the same, it is just that there in nothing in a planet to create gravity according to Quantum Field Theory.

so dk, which direction do you think gravitons come from? Please teach us from where they originate.

*************

I would think we probably would have found one by now if it came from the center of the Earth.

************

If it was part of the atomic structure of atoms I'm sure we would have stumbled on it by now as at least residue after breaking up atoms.

************

Even Newton thought the spontaneity of gravity seemingly across the universe was an absurdity if it were a pulling force. That would mean a graviton was capable of infinite speed.

************

Objects like photons with no resting mass are given two different names and treated as particles or waves so they fit the math but still have two different 'wave lengths'. Does not the two wave length characteristic of photons fit a vibration/orbit model?

************

How do you explain the spontaneous re-generation of one quark into two quarks when you break one of them up?

************

Since neutron stars, dwarf white stars and black holes seem to be made up of energy taken to it's most dense state, would not this require that the two of the three motions of the atoms (vibration and orbit) would have to be eliminated with only the spin left?

*************

Please, elucidate us with your theory of origin of gravitons! The world awaits!

Correction: Mass density blocks gravitons from pushing us OFF the surface of a planet.

Since gravity around a round planet works in all directions then gravitons would be coming AT us from all directions which is why they can warp the time/space fabric even though the warps have nothing to do with planets.

It would also explain why gravity seems to be immediately felt across seemingly great distances.

Lynn,

That is not necessarily so, gravitational 'pull' is only a measurement of how the mass of a planet affects an object on or near it.

There is nothing that says gravity cannot be the presence of something pushing objects against the planet with the mass of the planet blocking it from the opposite direction.

The math would be the same so you can't mathematically prove which type of force it is.

The earth has a gravitational field; so does the moon. If gravity repelled gravity, the moon would no longer be here.

In an atom there is attraction and repulsion or (perhaps only centrifugal force, Ha HA!) Are these forces the same as gravity? Is this an energy state? a gravitational state?

If I make a sling (think David and Goliath) and turn loose one end of the sling, where does the energy come from? Is this not the way the universe works?

If I hang an plumb line next to a granite mountain and right next to it is a large mass of sand, will your plumb line point to the center of the earth? Wanta bet? Maybe the mass of granite would influence the indicated plumb line?

Yes I agree that mass makes gravity, and the moon is still with us. But! the universe is expanding when they said that gravity would draw every thing into a singularity, so with the universe expanding and the moon still with us, is this a contradiction? What is gravity, warped time and space? or is there more to it?

Regards JD.

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at the rate of about an inch a year ,if memory serves.....

Yes I've read that somewhere in the past, along with the remark that it's due to the affect of the earth's tides? I suppose gravity comes into that somewhere?

Regards JD.

Well, yes, of course it does. The bulge of water, called "tide" acts as a weak brake on the moon's rotation, as the force that keeps the moon in orbit is acting from a point that is not at the centre of mass of the earth. So the moon slows down over time. So it moves farther out over time.

Have a rummage down Wikipedia. Start picking up topics on gravity, tides, "tidal lock", celestial mechanics and spacetime. There's plenty of good bedtime reading in that lot; try it by moonlight, perhaps?

Actually the effect of the tides is to increase the speed of the moon...not decrease it.

Just ask yourself:

'if the moon were to slow down, would it increase or decrease the distance from earth?

gravity is a distortion of space and time.

Would you also call acceleration a distortion of momentum?

'.... the natural order of things seems to be that, like repels like, and, opposite attracts opposite.....'

The attractive force of gravity is not without precedent. The nuclear force attracts like and dissimilar.

Lets give some though, out of the box, that gravity is conforming to the natural order of things, opposite attracting opposite. We refer to a mass as having a centre of gravity, now for the purpose of this argument lets refer to the centre of gravity as being positive and the lines of force radiating out into space as being negative? Then one could consider that the negative radiating force is attracted to positive centre of a another body of mass? and visa versa. Note that this attracting force is acting on the centre of mass and not on the mass itself? this in turn moves the centre of gravity in the mass and this in turn pull the mass into line? Now if we apply this to the Earth and Moon relationship, with the Earth's centre of gravity pulled off centre we get two tides per day, and the moon's centre pull off centre far enough that centrifugal force keeps the back face of the Moon away from us? Just a few thoughts.

Regards JD.

Since gravity is natural, it has to conform to the natural order of things.

It's just that no one knows what's behind the natural order. There are a lot of theories, but not much understanding. They say that mass causes gravity and that the Higgs field causes mass. Who or what caused the Higgs field?

Check GRAVITON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

and Anti-graviton ...

For it to repel like for like, you need to prove that gravity is due to a particle (like the other fundamental forces) named Graviton, which is still not proven. It is only a hypothetical particle-force. then you will need to find it's Anti (I presume?).

In follow the opinion which says: Gravitational pull is to be compared as a fall into a valley, meaning that in the 3D pace + Time fabric of the Universe, Gravity is due to a depression caused by Mass. You fall into it. The more Masses fall into such a depression, the deeper it gets and the more difficult it becomes to escape from its pull (Steeper slopes), until you reach the conditions of what is labelled A black Hole.

In such a scenario, There is no repulsion. Mass attracts Mass because of the depression caused in the Fabric of the Universe and not because of a force-particle.

Anyway, These are theories and I don't know how near the to real truce all this is.

The only two things that can not be proven to be a push is gravity and magnetism. You suck through a straw and air pressure pushes your drink to you.

For energy changes there must be surplus that pushes the energy to a lower energy state. Cold does not move to heat the higher heat is pushed to the cold.

So is there something that pushes you the greater mass? How does magnets attract. Or repulse?

We say that we are pulling a chain, however, each link is really pushing the one behind it so we should say we are pushing the chain down the street!

I guess there is energy stored in a gravitational field. Energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc2). So a gravitational field has mass which creates more gravity. This effect would be negligible for an object the mass of the Earth, but possibly not for a super massive black hole.

I don't think a gravitational field in and of itself qualifies as having energy and therefore an equivalent mass, such that it established its own additional gravitational field, even minutely.

.

Gravitation is often described as a well. One of the ways the analogy works well is in reminding us that energy is required to extricate something from a gravitational field.

.

Once a mass has fallen into a gravitational field, it requires energy just to get it out of the field. Essentially it has a negative energy component related to the degree to which it is effected by the gravitational field.

.

.

Another thing I believe is in the way of gravity creating its own gravity is that I don't think the E in E=MC² includes potential energy, since potential energy is related things like frames of reverence.

If potential energy changed mass, we would have some strange phenomena...Like people weighing more if they were looking down hill than uphill. Also, gasoline might weigh more in the presence of liquid oxygen than in the presence of liquid argon.

.

I could be wrong though.

..Like people weighing more if they were looking down hill than uphill.

Potential energy doesn't depend on where you are looking.

In a sense it does.

Potential energy is in relation to some other state/position.

To meaningfully describe gravitational potential energy, of say a 100 kg mass is 100 m off the ground, I have to define another height as a reference....

Potential compared to:

the building roof 95 m off the ground?

the ground?

the bottom of the 100 m well?

to the center of the earth?

to a plane 1000 m above?

If you actually go there, your potential energy changes, but to just look there, it doesn't! You don't get a free ride by looking and wishing.

OK so how would you calculate your gravitational potential energy without reference to another position/height in the field?

You make it sound as if you have an absolute potential energy.... if so, could you tell me how you arrive at such? For simplicity feel free to ignore all the other forms of potential energy and just focus on gravitational potential energy.

We will place a large mass on your transom, and when you open the door it is located in a manner that there is no longer a support and it falls on your head. Since gravity has no energy it will not hurt? Potential energy has now became energy and it is your head that has a lump?

Any force that may cause work (forces causing work must be energy?) so how can you define gravity as not being energy?

Because the topic was whether the gravitational field in and of itself has energy such that it is affected by relativistic mass energy equivalence.

.

In your fanciful scenario playing out your desire to dropping things on my head the field alone is not what causes my injury or your glee.

.

A thing in the gravity well is at a lower energy than if it were traveling at the same speed but outside the gravity well.

.

So while objects falling into the lower energy state convert the energy excess (from moving outside the well to deep inside) into other forms of energy (kinetic, thermal, acoustic), the field in and of itself doesn't have energy in the same sense.

The moon and the earth would attract each other if they could overcome the vectors of energy each has due to their rotation through the solar system each balanced by an infinite number of other "draws" such as the sun,the next solar system in our part of the galaxy etc..If the earth and moon ever get nearer than a critical scalar distance from each other than they would likely reconnect..I think one of the theories of the moon being where it is is that a large extraterrestial body slammed into the earth and whacked a good chunk of our terra firma into space where it would have kept going but the pull of the earth established it at a critical distance wherein the tug of the earth kept it tethered more or less to the earths sphere of influence...Tensile forces/compressive forces/centripital forces all come in to play but they come from the entire universe not just locally so to think..

"The moon and the earth would attract each other if..."

If the Earth and Moon did not attract each other, the moon would go flying off in space. The gravitational attraction between the two is what keeps them in orbit around their mutual center of gravity. This center of gravity of the Moon-Earth pair is inside the Earth, but definitely not at the center of the Earth. You yourself mentioned centripetal force. That is exactly what the mutual attraction between the Earth and moon provides.

Just another though, out of the box, regarding the idea of anti gravity which has been raised. Reading about the Moon in Wikipedia, I was drawn to the fact that its gravity is not of even strength along its surface, and they even have a word for it mascon, this, in my mind agrees with the possibility that the centre of gravity within mass is not necessary at the centre of the mass? If you consider the objects about you, and you yourself, and consider that the Earth's gravity is displacing the centre of gravity down-wards within mass, and the centre of gravity acts on the centre of mass too become re-aligned, but is unable to do so because of the resistance of the surface we are resting upon. So, how can anti gravity happen? I don't think it can, but thinking about the sailors of old and the discovery of lodestone and what that led to, what is needed is the discovery of some material that can act upon the centre of gravity within mass? Then its Up, Up and away?

Regards JD,

Gravity on the earth is far from being even!! A few years ago the US government spent many millions correcting mapping mistakes caused because plump lines used in the first surveys were affected by these different areas of gravitational effects.

"mistakes caused because plump lines"

Did you mean plumb lines?

I'm sure he did, but he may have just been plumb wrong! I've never heard of using plumb lines to make maps before.

Plumb lines are used by surveyors to establish a vertical axis for their transit shoots.

The transit is placed over a benchmark and the plumb line allows the surveyor to locate his transit accurately. But if gravity is warped the transit would be mis-located.

Benchmark (surveying) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gravity is different in different places in the earth (pole vs equator), but a plumb bob will always go straight down unless it's made of iron and there's some lodestone near the surface.

Really?

From: Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A perfect sphere of spherically uniform density (density varies solely with distance from centre) would produce a gravitational field of uniform magnitude at all points on its surface, always pointing directly towards the sphere's centre. However, the Earth deviates slightly from this ideal, and there are consequently slight deviations in both the magnitude and direction of gravity across its surface. Furthermore, the net force exerted on an object due to the Earth, called "effective gravity" or "apparent gravity", varies due to the presence of other factors, such as inertial response to the Earth's rotation. A scale or plumb bob measures only this effective gravity.

Parameters affecting the apparent or actual strength of Earth's gravity include latitude, altitude, and the local topography and geology.

Please define "straight down"! Many people would say that straight down is the direction in which a Plum bob points...

I suspect that there exists instrumentation sufficiently precise to show a different deviation between the directions of two Plumb Bobs, one placed at the base of El Capitan and one at the opposite side of the Yosemite Valley floor, than would be the case between two identical Plum Bobs placed the same distance apart with the same orientation on top of El Capitan.

I've done no math to calculate the deviations, but it is conceivable that the ones on the valley floor might even diverge, while the ones on top would certainly converge.

Yes, divergences from large masses to one side are detectable, and also from the oblateness of the geoid.

Please define "straight down"! Many people would say that straight down is the direction in which a Plum bob points...

I like it! Thanks for making me right.

What's a "Plum bob"--an undried Prune on a Piece of String? Or should that be "plum Bob"?

--Editor Crankshaft

150 Meters might make a big difference over 3000 miles?

http://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/reference%20surfaces/refsurf.html

Yes an interesting point, the irregular surface gravity of the earth is referred to as the Geoid and makes interesting reading.

Regards JD.

'Center of mass' is a convenient simplification.

.

Treating bodies as point masses makes for quick calculations, but clearly modeling things this way introduces significant error.

.

Consider the solar system as a whole. It has some center of mass...probably somewhere inside the sun. But, just because that is the center of all the mass of the solar system doesn't mean the net force on every object is directed toward that center point. Luckily for us, we continue to fall toward the earths center even at high noon.

.

The gravitational field for the planet is much the same. Areas where large formations of high density material are just below the surface will have stronger gravitational fields. If those areas are under lakes or oceans, water will bulge up above in those areas. If those are areas of dry land, people and object will weigh more when put on a scale.

.

As far as I know there is no separation of mass from gravity.

We have some high priced satellites measuring gravitation differences on the Moon the Earth, and Mars (maybe other planets) if maps are accurate using plumb line then why are we spending these billions of dollars?

Yes, as a matter of fact the phrase of the commentator is true. And not only in the obvious way: a massive body attracts another massive body. There is much more: as the energy is equivalent to the mass, energy also attracts energy. As a result, the energy of a gravitational field -derived from a massive body- is, also, attracted by the gravitational field of another massive body. So, you could say that: gravity attracts gravity.

Gravity has no opposite "charges" (unlike electric field which has two opposite charges (+ & -) or magnetic field which has two opposite poles (North & South)), so gravity is always attractive. (This is not weird, as the other two fundamental forces -i.e. weak nuclear power and strong nuclear power- have no opposite "charges" too.)

It is so, because no "negative mass" has ever been observed. Moreover, it can be proved that a negative mass should repel any other mass (of any kind), while a positive mass should attract any other mass (of any kind). So, in a case that a positive and a negative mass are close to each other, the positive mass should attract the negative mass, while -at the same time- the negative mass should repel the positive mass, resulting in a paradox: the negative mass should "chase" the positive mass continuously and the pair of masses should be accelerated endelessly, passing the speed of light and ending up to an infinite speed.

I give you a neutral rating on paragraph #1 (thumb sideways), a (+) on paragraph #2 (thumb up), and a (-) on paragraph #3 (thumb down).

Gravitational energy is potential energy and it's negative.

GK:

The coalescence of numerous massive particles sufficient for gravity to become meaningful, does not represent a higher energy state. Quite the opposite, it is a lower energy state.

It becomes obvious when you consider the amount of energy required to move some of the particles away from the collection. It requires energy because being trapped in a gravitational field is a lower energy stated than not being in the field.

It can also be seen from the other perspective: A particle far away accelerates as it approaches. Where is this energy coming from? It is the conversion of the energy the particle had when effected very little by the gravitational field being converted into kinetic energy as it moves into a lower energy (minus the added kinetic energy) state.

So since we aren't looking at kinetic energy and are just considering a gravitational field, it looks like pronounced effects of gravity should represent a decrease in the energy of the system and therefore a decrease in the effective mass of the system (as compared to the same system widely separated...i.e. a higher energy state).

That would suggest that gravity could be thought to repel gravity. The effect however is likely so weak that it is of little consequence, and saying that would likely add more confusion to a discussion than otherwise.... the only reason I am stating it right now is to refute your statement

'you could say that: gravity attracts gravity'.

You have demonstrated it is possible to make that statement, but not without being wrong.

Perhaps this dark energy - dark matter that is supposed to be pushing the universe apart is in fact negative gravity? I kept waiting to see if anyone would bring dark energy into this discussion since there is so much it, it must have something to do with gravity?

'... there is so much it, it must have something to do with...'

.

I haven't run across this argument before. Is there a name for this? Appeal to abundance? Argument for ubiquity?

.

I am intrigued. Please elaborate further on this 'there is so much of 'X' it must have something to do with 'Y'' construct.